


















V - 1 • 



^' ^t." 



< 









<> ♦: 







V> * • • » 




• ■v' '^ "^ 

':.% /.:i-^->o y*/^^.V ,/.:^^'>o M 

.0 

,« .*,e^-. •^*„ .^ /^V^.. *^^^^« ..^fe-., \^/ :^A 

\ '-yw.' **'■** 'v^^/ ^^'^^ °-^P-* **"■% '•■ 

^' °o /\.ja^%v .c^v^^^o^^ ..^''\-4^^\. 









« .0' 



'-^^.-^ 









^^ 



>..^^ :Mai^\ -o^^^^'' : 






■bv" 



•:♦ J' 



A°^ 













^•> /.-^-X /^'j^'y--. z^^^^.x. ^ 



?:>• ,^°-'*-.- '• 







V ^*^ 



.♦ <L^ <^^ * 



• -L^ 







'bv" 



^^•n^. 



o.. *r:^' ^0 














;• **'% -.IP/ /% -.TO^-- r% • 

..o' .0-' V *•'••• ^^ 




J^- °- /.-^^'.^ ^°.^i^'> ./\'^i.\ 



















i..\. /..i:^-*°o ..**\.<^^'V /..i:;^>o 
















^vO<=.^ 



*^\ 








%.** 




"i* -^^ ^<^ ^_ - . 



lO. 












• • ' aO' 






NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC VOLUNTEERS. 



Document No. 2. 



Read this, then hand it to tyc^ti^r Neighbor ! 



„rit ,^.. :ir 



^'T^TTT'^ 




A- "voLXJisn^ftEn. 



[^From advance sheets of the OctoberMumber of the Natio.nci,l Democi'atic QU^rterhj He/view.] 



CHAPTER I. 

OF THE TKINCIPLES UPOX WHICH ALL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE 

ORGANIZED. 



The Democratic party having asserted that the people of the several 
States of the Confederacy have the right to emigrate into any of the ter- 
ritories of the United States, and to take with them their personal property 
of whatever kind, whether they emigrate from a slaveholding or a non- 
slaveholding state, entails upon us, as one of them, the duty of sustaining 
that assertion by arguments bearing upon the case, and by the statement 
of facts connected with our government ; the principles under which it 
was organized, and by which all its powers are regulated. 

All governments are, or should be established solely for the benefit of 
the people to be governed ; and whenever any conflict of interest arises 
among such people, it is the duty of the government to endeavor to 
evolve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This being 
admitted to be the true object of government, the principle which 
establishes the ruling powers of the majority is easily comprehended. But, 
as majorities are sometimes as tyrannical as individuals, human wisdom 
has adopted certain forms by which tlie powers of the majoi-it}'- may be 
restricted within certain defined limits. By the establishment of this form 
of government the people are enabled to sustain their ceded legal rights, 
and protect their common interests from violation, whether from the 
majority, or from those whom the majority may have placed in power. 
This restriction upon their independent action can be made only by the 
adoption of a constitution, in which the powers and rights of bolh people 
and government shall be clearly defined. When this fundamental form 

1 



T3Z 



2 — 



has been established, it becomes a binding compact between the people 
themselves, and also between the people and their chosen rulers. Such a 
solemn agreement should receive the greatest respect, and the unyielding 
sup])ort of all good citizens. 

The organic act, or constitution, constitutes the basis upon which all the 
acts of the government are founded, and by which the people connected 
with such government are induced to respect and sustain such acts. Many 
of the people may not always and at all times approve of some of those 
acts, because their judgments or prejudices may be in opposition ; but as 
they have been enacted by that branch of government which was estab- 
lished by the constitution, they adopt the necessity of compliance until 
they are repealed or modified in a legal and constitutional manner. 

A government organized upon such a basis is supposed to be free from 
the charge of tyranny, and the people are looked upon as being no other 
than freemen. The constitution being a compact, made by and between the 
people, possesses therefore a mutual character, whicli is thus placed beyond 
the control of the mere prejudices or even the interests of any part of the 
people, when the enforcement of such prejudices or interests Avould be 
calculated to subvert the interests- of the other part ; and although a 
majority may uphold such encroachments upon the rights of the minority, 
yet, if the constitution does not sustain such majority, but, on the contrary, 
condemns its acts, the majority is bound to conform to the requirements 
of the constitution as soon as those requirements are interpreted by the 
authority which the same constitution has designated as the umpire and 
expounder of its provisions, between the government and people, and 
between the different portions of the people. 

The constitution having been created, and the several departments of 
the government for which it provides, having been established by the inde- 
pendent action of the people, it becomes the bounden duty of all good 
citizens to obey the directions of the several departments, according to the 
construction of the constitution which each department may put upon their 
own acts, until such acts are repealed or annulled by the decision of a higher 
department, as constituted by the constitution. We liold, thei-efore, that 
the question with regard to the settlement of the territories belonging to a 
nation, must be adjusted according to tlie interests of the whole people of 
the nation, and not by that of a majority of mere voters, unless the con- 
stitution of the nation has clearly defined some other manner of deciding. 
It is true the majority may assume the right to make their own construc- 
tion upon their powers under the constitution, and they may attempt to 
maintain the doctrine to which they give their political support. But in 
the exercise of this right, they should not allow their prejudices to govern 
them ; they should confine their action entirely within the rules of justice 
and comity toward all men. They should refrain from committing any 
overt acts which might lead to the infringement of the riglits of their 
fellow citizens, whctlicr the exercise of those rights accords with their own 
views or not. All controversies wliich may arise between the people, 
should be settled upon a basis of ecjual justice to all who may have any 
interest in the settlement of the (juestion in dispute. 

It is the duty of every citizen of the United States to remember that 
before the constitution of tlie United States was adopted, each state was a 
free and independent government, and that the people of those govern- 
ments were not compelled by any compact or agreement of whatever kind 
to jeopardise aoy of their personal interests for the good of tiiose residing 
in another state. Nor were they called upon to furnish their: aid to sustain 



any other state except the one m which they resided, unless as friendly 
neioflibors against a common foe, and as children of a common ancestry. 
Justice, then, compels us to consider that the formation of the present sys- 
tem of general government was an act which was entered into by the 
people of the several states for the protection of the interests of all, indi- 
vidually and collectively, and when they adopted our present form of 
government each sought primarily his own protection, and conceded to all 
the rest the same right, while all would aid in assisting each other when 
necessary. 

Having such feelings, and such important objects to stimulate them, it 
is not surprising that some were willing to concede a portion of their 
personal rights in oi'der that other rights might be better protected. 

To fully appreciate the bles,^ings and advantages to be derived by us as 
a people, in consequence of the establishment of the constitution, it is 
necessary that we should fully understand the rights to which all others are 
entitled, in order that we may more fully comprehend our own. All men are 
so created that they cannot subsist alone, and become as perfect as nature 
intended them to become ; they are therefore necessarily compelled to 
seek for association with their fellow men, in order to protect and preserve 
their intellectual and other powers, so that they may enjoy the life and 
pleasures of rational beings. If men do not keep up their associations 
with each other, they soon lose those refined sentiments and feelings which 
are so essential to their interests and happiness. But as each man is 
endowed with the right to live and enjoy himself, each shall also recognize 
that right for others, and thus command respect for himself. It therefore 
becomes the duty of every man to endeavor to promote the happiness of 
all, and thus lay a solid foundation for the mutual benefit of all who are 
members of the community. 

To form a society upon such a basis, is to establish certain defined rights 
which are to be enjoyed by the people who constitute such society. All 
men, being subject to the laws of nature, are entitled to the enjoyment of 
all the rights which nature has guaranteed to them. And although they 
may form themselves into societies, yet they do not cease to be men, and 
as men to remain free and independent, except so far as they are restricted 
by their obligations to the society to which they belong, and which they 
have joined with the sole object of protection of these rights. 

When a man becomes a member of society he does not, in reality, 
relinquish those rights which nature gave him. He merely changes the 
manner of procuring them and the means by which they are to be pro- 
tected. He should still retain his right to hold property, and enjoy the 
liberty to go and come at his pleasui'e, and otherwise seek for his own 
interests ; but he cannot do these things in violation of the natural or 
protected rights of those who are his equals in such society. As the right 
to hold property is a natural right, and is that which is brought in question 
in the present territorial controversy, we will consider that right in its 
several bearings. 

CHAPTER II. 

OF THE TITLE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY. 

The law of nature, which grants to man the right to hold dominion over 
all things in the world, is fully set forth in the 26th, 27th, and 28th verses 
of the first chapter of Genesis. This " higher law " than that of man's 



_ 4 — 

making reads as follows : "And God said let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness, and let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and 
over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and 
over every creeping thing that creepeth over the earth. So God created 
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and 
female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, 
Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have 
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over 
every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 

The dominion of Man being thus clearly established by Divine Law, 
the question arises, " What particular part of the animal creation is Man ?" 
To answer this question we must ascertain which part of the animal crea- 
tion is the most competent to maintain a dominion over all the other parts. 
And to establish this fact we have only to show what particular part of the 
animal creation has held, and continues to hold, dominion over all the 
other parts of creation. The history of the world teaches us that the 
white race has held that dominion, and our own experience and observa- 
tion teach us that he holds that dominion now. In no part of the world's 
history, so far as we are informed, has any other class of the animal crea- 
tion than the white race held the supreme dominion over the world. The 
negro, as also many of the beasts of the forest, have had, and continue to 
hold, temporary sway over many of the weaker of the animal creation ; 
but wherever the white race appears in sufficient force to sway, by mental 
or physical power, tlie mere brute force of the animal in possession has 
always had to give way to the superiority of the wliite race. The real 
progress and civilization of the world has always been projected and 
developed by the white race. 

We therefore claim that the white men of the present day are the 
"Man" whom God declared should hold dominion over the world and all 
things therein. 

It may be claimed that the negro has sprung from man, and is therefore 
man, and that this mere difterence of color from the white does not 
deprive him of his right to hold dominion in connection with the white 
race, because that color may have been produced by the climate or the soil 
where he originated. To those who hold this doctrine we say, if the 
climate or soil will change the complexion, will it also make the nose more 
flat, the hair more like wool, and the formation of the liead and limbs more 
like the lower order of animals? And will it reduce a man to almost the 
level of the brute, by fastening upon his system the same disgusting smell 
and many of the most beastly instincts of the lower class of animals? Do 
soil and climate so aft'ect the negro as to deprive him, as a race, of all 
inclination to rise from the degradation of the brute to become "a man 
after God's image?" If soil and climate will do all these things, why will 
not a change of soil and climate also change these ditfercnces of nature, 
and bring the negro somewhat nearer to the image of his maker? Has 
such cliange of position ever done these things? lias the negro ever 
become the equal to man in intellect or mental ca])acity in any climate or 
on any soil ? Has the negro ever attained those higlier spheres of civili- 
zation wherever he has had the entire control of his own affairs and 
actions ? To all these queries the answer must be that history does not 
furnish us with one instaace to controvert our position. It does not refer 
us to a single nation populated by the negro the affairs of which have 
ever attained to tiiat position in human progress and civilization, which 
has been in a continual state of development since the world began under 



— 5 — 

the direction of tlie white race. The ancient Mexicans and Peruvians, 
although we have no knowledge of their ever having held communion 
with the other branches of the human family, enjoyed a great degree of 
civilization when found by the Europeans, but no one has ever found more 
than the remotest idea of that civilization or cultivation among the negroes 
of Africa, although they have always been in immediate proximity to 
civilized Europe and cultivated Asia. We say, then, that the physical 
fo$mation and color, or complexion of a man, denote his right by the 
laws of nature to hold dominion over all things having being in the 
world. God, it appears, made but one man, and that one man was either 
white or black, as those are the only two animals in the world which can 
in any way be considered as being made after the likeness, or in the image 
of God. But these two animals, white and black, being by nature so dif- 
ferent in many important particulars, therefore only one of the two can 
by any possibility be considered as the "• Man " which " God made to his 
own image, to hold dominion over the world." Whichever one it is, he 
must of right hold dominion over the other, as well as over every other 
thing which moves upon the earth or in the sea. 

The title to pei'sonal property is either absolute or qualified. An abso- 
lute title denotes a full and complete ownership and conti'ol over the prop- 
erty so held. A qualified title in personal property denotes a temporary 
or special interest, held by the owner or possessor, which is liable to be 
totally lost or converted, on the happening of some particular event, which 
event must be known and fully defined at the time when such property 
was acquired. The qualified ownership in property may be understood 
from the nature of the thing or chattel possessed. The ownership of air, 
light, and water cannot be considered absolute, because they are common 
by the law of nature, and are comprised among, the elements of nature ; 
but a horse, or other domestic animal, is not so considered, it not being 
elementary, and therefore subject to the control of the superior being, 
Man. Having the right to acquire absolute property in the inferior 
animal, it is reasonable to suppose that he has acquired that absolute 
ownership, and he cannot be divested of it unless by his own consent. If 
any one should take his property from one state to another, in which there 
exists a law to deprive him of that ownership, he will, of course, lose his 
control and ownership of that property. The state being a sovereignty, 
it has an undoubted right to enact such a law, as far as that sovereignty is 
concerned, and the man, having entire control of his own acts, has an equal 
right to go into such state or remain out of it. If, under these circumstances, 
he should go into such state and remain therein until he becomes a citizen 
thereof, he is bound by its laws, and must release his ownership in such 
property, because he has voluntarily brought it within the influence of 
those laws. 

But if the right to take his property, of whatever nature, into any of 
the states, is guaranteed by the constitution of the United States, then of 
course all state laws which conflict with this constitution must be inopera- 
tive. Where the ownership or title to personal property is absolute, it 
carries with it the right to use that property in such manner, and in such 
places as the owner may desire, provided he does not transgress the laws 
of nature, or the constitutional laws of the nation in which he may be. 

The rights which pertain to real property are in many cases similar to 
those which belong to property personal. If a man has an absolute title 
in real estate, he cannot transfer that property from one phice to another, 
but he can transfer the title thereof at his pleasure, or change the use of 



— 6 — 

such property as lie may deem proper. But where he holds a joint right 
Aith others, they all have equal rights in the property, unless the title is 
otherwise defined. And if they are joint tenants in the title, they must be 
equal in their riglits to use the px'operty, either to settle upon it, to lease or 
grant it out to others. When exercising this right, they have also the 
right to take with them such property as they may choose, especially if 
they were the owners of such property at the time such property was 
acquired ; and the other joint tenants cannot refuse this right, although 
some of that property may not be aclcnowledged to be personal property 
by those who are joint tenants with him in the real estate. He can take 
it there and use it upon such land, and no one has the right to molest him, 
even if all those who arc connected with him in the ownershi]i of the land 
are opposed to the holding of such personal property. Tlie rights of 
every man are protected by the laws of his country, which empowers him 
to exercise his own judgment with regard to his own acts in the manage- 
ment of his property. 

These rights are absolute, and cannot be subject to the influences of the 
opinions or prejudice of particular men or parties, however much they 
may be opposed to his exercise of such rights. 

The right to hold and possess personal property, like that in real, is 
acquii-ed by the laws of nature, but the retention and disposal of it is 
protected and regulated by the laws of the community in which the person 
lives who holds such ownership ; and those laws extend into all parts of 
the domain which belong to such community, or in which it has any inter- 
est, although other sections of the community in which there are different 
local laws may possess an ecpial interest therein. If this interest is affected 
by the acts of such other communities, although there may be but one 
individual alFccted thereby, it is an infringement upon the legal right of 
the whole community, and should not be permitted to remain unredressed. 

In the consideration of the rights of men, we are compelled to define 
them according to the laws of nature as comprehended among men, both 
as individuals and as communities. 

But in so considering them, we should not forget that the laws of nature 
are perfect, while man's judgment is imperfect, and therefore subject to 
misunderstanding. If one man, or one set of men claim that the laws of 
nature justify him or them to exercise any particular rights, and the laws 
of their commuuitj'^ justify him' also in such exercise, no other man or set 
of men have a right to resist such exercise, although the act may" be 
repugnant to their feelings. 

Having thus defined the title and rights to hold and use personal prop- 
erty, we will now show how this title may be acquired. The right which 
man possesses to hold property has been conferred upon him by the laws 
of nalure, which created a necessity in the affairs of men firthe possession 
of property ; and this necessity being absolute, the right can not be justly 
taken from him, as the laws of nature have not imposed upon man any 
obligations which cannot be fulfilled and executed according to those laws. 
Man is, therefore, endowed with an absolute right to property, and nothing 
can properly destroy that right, because nothing can relieve man from ful- 
filling his obligations to nature. 

TJie right which man has to hold property being natural, his exercise 
of that right cannot be made a question between one man and another, 
unless that othef can show that he has a superior right to ownersliip of the 
same property. To obviate as much as possible the trouble of defining 
the ownership to property by the mere assertion of those who are interested, 



the governments of nations have established certain rules, by which the 
acquirement and retention of such property may be regulated. These 
rules having become absolute, the title to the property has become absolute 
according to the manner in Avhicli this ownership may have been acquired 
and retained by the person claiming to be its owner. 

If a person acquires an ownership to any property through the rules 
established by any government, he cannot be deprived of that ownership 
by the action of that government or by an individual, unless he is fully 
remunerated for the value thereof at the time when he is compelled to 
relinquish his ownership. The government, it is true, may not have con- 
ferred such ownership, but as it had regulated the manner by which such 
property had been acquired, it is bound to make his loss good, although it 
should be clearly demonstrated that the public interest requires such 
ownership to be destroyed. The government having held out inducements 
to the people to purchase such property, it is bound to protect that prop- 
erty when it has been so purchased. We hold, therefore, when a property 
has been so acquired, and in consequence cannot be taken from the owner 
without full compensation, that its use cannot be restricted by the govern- 
ment or any one else belonging to the government. If the government 
should enforce this manifest injury or injustice upon one class of property, 
it has the same right to exercise the same powers upon all other classes of 
property. No one has a right to deprive another of the possession of his 
property upon strictly moral grounds, for those principles of morality 
which he may possess may not be the same as those held by another. But 
if one man has a joint title, or if he thinks he has a title in the property 
held by another, he should be permitted to aiaintain that title, atid take 
the property if his is adjudged to be the best title. 

To make the ownership to property of any avail to its possessor, it must 
be pei-manent ; to be permanent, such property should be absolute, or, if 
it is not absolute, it should be fully defined, so that he can justly estimate 
the true value of its ownership at the time he acquires it. 

When the fundamental laws of a government definfe what constitutes 
property, no subsequent action can deprive those who hold property from 
retaining it at their pleasure, and the government is bound to protect the 
owners in their rights by the exertion of all its powers, if necessai-y. The 
government is also compelled to sustain such citizens in the full exercise 
of their legal rights, whether they have removed from the place in Avhich 
they acquire such ownership or not, provided, however, they do not remove 
beyond the jurisdiction of the government with the intention of changing 
their residence, in which case they will, of course, relinquish their rights 
of protection from such government. 



CHAPTER III. 

OF THE TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY. 

The possession of domain is acknowledged by all nations as prima facie 
evidence of the title to such domain. But as such possession may have 
been obtained by a forcible entry and retention, or by a permit from 
another, and subject to certain conditions, the mere possession does not, 
thei'efore. always constitute or prove the possessor to be the actual owner 
of such domain. For a nation to hold this ownership in full, it must pos- 
sess the inherent right to dispose of it as may seem most advisable, and 



when it possesses that right, no one else can have any claim to it whatso- 
ever, unless they obtain their rights therein as citizens of such nation. 

It is evident, then, that a nation should have an absolute authority over 
its domain, if it claims the right to dispose of it, or control the use or 
occupancy thereof. When we speak of the absolute authority of a nation 
over its domain, wo compi-ehend in that authority full power over the 
title to the land, and all its acquisitions, made by whatever means which 
are just in themselves, and all the rights which pertain thereto. And 
these rights to convey, carry with them the control of all the affairs con- 
nected with the people residing thereon, or with the land. 

It is easy, therefore, for us to ascertain who is the real owner of the 
lands, provided it can be shown in whom the right to sell and dispose of 
the lands is vested. And this manner of settling the question will apply 
to the territories of the United States, as well as to any other nation or 
people. We will, therefore, so apply it, and establish the title to the 
territories, and also show in whom they rest, and who has the entire con- 
trol of them. 

As the government of the United States receives its powers and being 
from the people, so are the people subject to the control of the government 
to that extent which they have empowered the government to control 
them, and no further. It is, therefore, necessary for the people to guard 
well their rights, so that the government does not assume the exercise of 
powers which do not belong to it, and which may lead to the impoverish- 
ment of the people, by restricting them in the exercise of their reserved 
rights for their individual advancement and interests. If the people are 
not prosperous the government cannot be prosperous. If the citizens of a 
country are not free the government cannot be independent. If the rights 
of the citizens are not respected and maintained, the acts of the govern- 
ment will not be duly respected and sustained. 

It being necessary, as we have shown, for a nation to have absolute 
control over land, before it can be called the real owner, and that this right 
of control arises from the title only, it becomes our duty to investigate the 
title to the territories of the United States, and from the result of our 
investigation, decide which part of the government is invested with the 
power of control over them. 

The people of the United States having established our government 
upon a certain restricted basis, and conferred its powers upon several 
different departments, giving to each certain well defined powers, which 
are to be exercised only within their particular spheres, and without 
encroaching upon the rights or powers of any of the others — this basis 
being made permanent and imperative, becomes the fundamental law 
of the land, and as such must be obeyed, making it obligatory upon each 
department to refrain from exercising any power of doubtful character. 
For, as those powers are granted by the people, they should not be exer- 
cised against the ])eople, nor any department which they have established. 
This princii)le in governmental power has been acknowledged by all the 
writers upon the subject, in all ages and in all countries. 

Now, if under the powers thus granted to it, a government is not expressly 
empowered to purchase or otherwise acquire territory, and dispose of the 
same after it has been acquired, it cannot be considered as the real owner 
of any territory acquired by the United States, however it may be 
acquired, but is merely the trustee lor the people, who are the founders 
and supporters of the government; and as such trustee it can only act for 
the bonetit of the whole people, and not for the advantage of a particular 



— 9 — 

class or portion of the people. Its powers as such trustee not being fully 
defined," and the exercise of them being merely an assumption, it behooves 
the government to act without partiality or improper partisan bias. All 
the people, from every part of the country, should be allowed to partici- 
pate in and fully enjoy all the benefits to be derived from the possession 
and occupation of such territory, according to their own particular require- 
ments and respective interests, in the same manner and to the same extent 
in which they occupy and enjoy the territory within their own special 
jurisdiction, as citizens of a state, excepting, of course, the exercise of 
those rights which do not pertain to a territory, but which do attach to a 
sovereign state. 

The settlers in the territories being citizens of the several states, as 
well as citizens of the United States, their right, as such citizens, to intro- 
duce the institutions of their respective states into the common territory 
cannot be relinquished. <-ither by themselves or by their representatives ; 
so that the rights of those who may come after them into the territory may 
not be infringed upon. If any portion of those citizens should introduce 
into such territory any profession or institution which is recognized as 
legal by the constitution of the United States and that of the state from 
whence they come, the other part of the people residing in such territory, 
or the government itself, have no right to interfere to suppress or restrain 
their introduction, or in any way to attempt to prevent tliose persons froia 
the exercise of such natural and legal rights. 

The people of the United States being the owners of such territories, 
and having an equal right in their common property and occupancy, each 
ought to be permitted to enjoy without molestation all the advantages 
arising from that common ownership, which does not in any way interfere 
with its common use. None should be permitted to change or destroy a 
common water-course, or otherwise disarrange any of the general rights 
of his fellow tenants ; so should none attempt to suppress the exercise of 
the full rights of others in regard to the kind of labor they may employ. 
Nor can the government of the United States, or of the several states, 
interfere with the people in the exercise of these rights. 

This privilege or right is demanded for the whole people of the United 
States, upon tlie ground that the whole people, not having granted the 
power of interference or the right to regulate the same, to the general gov- 
ernment, or to any particular branch of government connected therewith, 
such rights naturally remain with and belong to the whole people, who are 
thus empowered to exercise the same rights therein, which they could do 
when they established the general government of the United States. They 
are only subject to such restrictions as they imposed upon themselves when 
they adopted the federal constitution, and the organic acts under which 
they might form their territorial govei-nment. 

But this territorial government being temporary in its form, and being 
authorized by the constitution only for the protection of the interests in 
the territory of the United States, the exercise of its powers cannot be 
considered as possessing all the sovereign riglits of a state. The title to 
the land being held in trust for the whole people by the government of the 
United States, a portion of the people can not exercise supreme control 
over it, or of the institutions which the people, or any portion of them, 
may establish within or upon such territory, so long as those institutions 
are recognized as legal by any of the states of the Union. Their i)owers 
as a part of the whole i)eople of the United States are paramount to those 
granted under the organic law, and of course their superior obligation is to- 
the whole people. 



— 10 — 

The title of the territories being vested in the whole people of the 
Union, and such people being the founders and only supporters of the 
government, none of their riglits can be affected until the people of such 
territory have formed themselves into one of the great divisions of 
the government, namely, a state, to do which they are compelled to pass 
through the regular stages of progress, as required by the provisions of 
the federal constitution and the laws enacted under them. 

When they do this, they then assume all the rights and powers which 
have been conferred upon that division by the whole people, as established 
by the provisions of the constitution. 

We. therefore, claim that the title to the territories of the United States 
is vested in the whole people, and, being so vested in them, they alone 
constitute that division of the government which can exercise the entire 
control over them, and even that control can only be had by the whole 
people, and not by a mere majority thereof. Tlie rights of each being 
derived from and reguhited by the laws of nature, they cannot be restricted, 
except by their own joint action. 

When*^ the people formed the several grand divisions of our present 
government, they granted to each certain detined powers ; those several 
divisions cannot, therefore, exercise any other powers than those which 
had thus been granted, even if a large majority of the people should 
express themselves favorably to any such divisions exercising certain 
powers which had not been specially granted. If they were permitted to 
do this there would be no security to a man ia his possession of life, 
liberty, or property. All men are endowed wilii certain inherent rights, 
over Which no majority can or should have any control ; because, should 
any ever become possessed of that power, the original possessor of those 
rights would cease to be independent, nor could he exercise his natural 
rights. The whole people having formed the government, they must be 
considered the absolute power in the state, which power they have used 
in forming that government, and it having' been made by the whole people, 
it cannot be overthrown except by the whole people. Nor can those 
powers which have been reserved to the whole be exercised by any 
portion of the whole, without infringing upon the reserved rights of 
the other portion. If the history of man has taught him to seek for 
protection from the tyranny of his government by the establishment of 
several distinct parts, granting to each certain independent powers, those 
several parts cannot maintain their respective functions unimpaired unless 
they are secured in the free exercise of the powers so granted, each from 
the other. At the same time, for one part or division to be free from 
the interference of another, it must itself refrain from interfering with 
the acknowledged or clearly established powers of that other. 



CHAPTER IV. 

Ol-" IIIK si.VERAL ORANn DIVISIONS OF POWER ESTABLISHED UNDER 
THE CONSTITUTION. 

When a people are determined to retain in their own hands the control 
of their own affairs in matters of a personal nature, they can do so, pro- 
vided that, v.hen they establish a government, they are willing to surrender 
a part of their inclividual rights for the greater certainty of being secured 
in the enjoyment of the remainder. In doing this they will establish two 



— 11 — 

authorities — one the public, the other tlie private. The public authority — 
the truest freedom being sought— should be established upon a fundamen- 
tal basis, by which the exercise of such authority shall be clearly deter- 
mined, and the manner of using it be regulated. This can only be done 
by the adoption of a constitution, in the provisions of which shall be found 
the power by which the nation is to act as a body, and how and by whom 
the people shall be governed. Hence, as the people surrendered only a 
part of their naturai rights when they formed this government, it is but 
just to suppose that the remainder of those rights should not be interfered 
with, either by the chosen governors, or by any of the people, while acting 
in their respective spheres. 

>.; When a nation adopts a constitution, that act does not become the con- 
trolling power of the state ; it is merely a protecting power. Its provisions 
were not agreed to with a view that it should control the natural actions 
of the peopTe, but simply to protect them against the encroachments of the 
rulers, and the disposition of improper interference of one part of the 
people with another. A constitution is, then, nothing more than an organic 
law, which establishes no acts but fundamental acts, the influence of which 
should extend over and through the whole nation, defending all interests 
alike, and restraining none, except such as may violate the functions of 
the general government. Those laws are made directly with a view to the 
public welfare, and to the well being of society. Those laws which govern 
the people in their intercourse with one another are called civil laws, 
deriving their power entirely from the local circumstances of particular 
sections of the nation, and extending their power only over such sections. 

If the federal government should enact general laws, with the intention 
that they should regulate the local afiairs of every section of the country, 
it is easy to perceive that, in a nation like the United States, such general 
laws would conflict with the natural rights of the people of some sections, 
and violate some of their best interests. 

The constitution and the laws growing out of it having been established 
as the basis of public tranquillity, the support of the public authority, 
and the security and the liberty' of the citizen, should be respected at 
all times, and under all circumstances, by those who govern, and also by 
those who are governed. If we attack or thwart the free exercise of the 
constitution and the laws enacted under.it, we are guilty of a most heinous 
crime against society at large, as well as a^inst ourselves ; because, if 
any can violate the laws with impunity when they do not happen to con- 
form to their own individual and peculiar notions of right, others might 
think themselves justified in other violations, even if by so doing they 
should endanger the safety and honor of the nation ; the result of which 
would be to subvert the whole fabric of the government and of society. 
History teaches us that every nation should guard well against the en- 
croachments of the people of any other country or nation upon then- 
rights. And any people who should be so lost to honoras to willingly 
allow their rights to be infringed upon by another nation, should not 
complain if made the slaves of those possessed of more spirit and deter- 
mination than themselves. And this principle is equally as applicable to 
the people of the different sections of the same country. 

The several divisions into which the people of the United States have 
distributed their governing powers may be thus described : First, tiie three 
fourths of all the states, when acting in unison upon a measure which has 
been properly brought before the whole number of states in the Union ; 
second, a majority of voters, when acting under the regulations established 



— 12 — 

by themselves ; tliird, llie congressional or legislative power ; fourth, the 
presidential or executive power of the general government ; and fifth, the 
judicial power. 

When the people initiated the proceedings for forming the present con- 
stitution, and, under it, the general governnaent of the United States, they 
were acting as a body politic, under what was called the '• Articles of 
Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States." The first article 
in that fundamental law reads thus : " The style of this confederacy shall 
be, ' The United States of America.' " The second reads : " Each state 
retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, juris- 
diction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to 
the United States in congress assembled." These articles were formed, as 
the preamble thereto states, by " the undersigned delegates of the states 
affixed to our names." 

After the preamble come the names of the several states which were 
parties to the confederation, thus accrediting the states as the contracting 
parties, without reference to the people of the states. The general gov- 
ernment of the United States continued to act as such, under the articles 
of confederation, until tlie 4th of March, 1780, when, by the resolution 
which had been passed on the 13th of September, 1788, the constitution 
of the United States, which had been adopted and ratified by the people 
of the original states, then went into full operation ; thereby forming a 
more perfect union of the people for the government ok the 

PEOPLE OF THE UnITED StATES OF AMERICA. 

The present constitution of the United States, having been adopted by 
the people as the fundamental law of the land, the articles of confederation 
were annulled ; but the existence of the states, as independent and sover- 
iegn powers, was retained by Article X. in the amendment to the consti- 
tution, which reads: "The powers not delegated to tlie United States by 
the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the 
states respectively, or to the people." 

The people, it is now admitted, were then and are now acknowledged 
to be the supreme power of the land ; and being such, they have the 
undoubted right to organize themselves into a body politic, under such 
forms and restrictions as they may deem proper; and when they have sa 
formed themselves, they can only be changed by the taking of those 
proceedings which are prescribed by the constitution itself. If all the 
people in the United Stated except some one individual, were to adopt 
any particular measure which was in violation of any one of the provisions 
established in the constitution, it could not be enforced, unless by violating 
the right of the one individual who was opposed to the measure. The 
constitution would first have to be changed in that provision which restricts 
in such general act against the public interest or power. The power which 
the people possess has been thus restricted by their own act, which act 
ihving been made for the public and ])rivate interests of the people, each 
and evary one having relinquished some of their natural rights for the 
public good, no particular portion of the people can again assume the 
exercise of those rights, unless by consent of the whole, as provided by 
the federal constitution. 

In forming the constitution of the United States, the people exercised 
those rights which are inherent to all belonging to a free and enlightened 
nation. They voluntarily surrendered, as we have belbre stated, a part of 
their rights to a power created by themselves, for the purpose of guaran- 
teeing to themselves greater security in the exercise of those rights which 



— 13 — 

they retained. The powers which they relinquished were not placed in 
the hands of those whom they appointed to exercise them to be used 
indiscriminately or Avithout restriction. They established a certain form 
of government and divided it into several independent parts, conferring 
upon each certain defined powers, bejond which neither of them were 
permitted to proceed. This exercise of their power is strong evidence 
that the people designed to establish each branch of the government upon 
a special basis, acting independently of the others, and yet, by reason of 
its powers being clearly defined, each should act only as a part of the whole 
government. 

It has been asserted by some of our leading statesmen that it was not 
the people who made the constitution, but the states. This cannot be so, 
for the preamble to the constitution informs us to the contrary. It says : 
^' We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect 
union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common 
defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for 
the United States of America." 

This preamble establishes beyond question the l\ict tliat the constitution 
is the creation of the people of the United States, and not of the states 
themselves. It is true that the states existed, as free and independent 
states, before the constitution was adopted, but their independence was 
sustained by the people and by them only ; and that independence still 
remains with them, except so far as the people deemed it necessary to 
relinquish a part thereof to the general government, for the purpose 
of creating a uniti/ of action and of strength for the general good and 
defence. 

The first grand division of the powers of the general government is 
described in Article V. of the' constitution, which says that the constitution 
may be amended by the ratification '^ of the legislatures of three fourths 
of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof." The 
powers conferred upon this division are therefore clearly defined to be 
that of amending the constitution. The second grand division is that of 
the majority of the people as voters at the election of rulers, either in a 
legislative, executive, or judicial capacity. They can do this eitlier by 
their own vote or by the votes of those whom they may have authorized 
to act for them, who are generally understood to be the legislators. The 
power of this division is confined entirely to the election of the rulers of 
the government. The third grand division is that of congress, which has 
had conferred upon it by section first of Article I., all the legislative 
powers granted in the federal constitution. The fourth grand division of 
the powers of the government conferred by the constitution, are those 
found in section one of Article II., which says that " the executive power 
shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." This 
power is defined by the constitution to consist in his being the commander- 
in-chief of the army and navy, and of the state militia, when in actual 
service. He makes treaties with foreign countries, under the advice of the 
senate ; nominates, and with the advice of the senate appoints ambassadors, 
other public ministers, consuls, judges of the supreme court, and sucli other 
officers which are not otherwise provided for in the constitution ; he can also 
fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, in any 
of the above offices, lie must from time to time give to congress infor- 
mation of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration 
such measures as he shall choose ; he can convene both houses of congress 



— 14 — 

or either of them, or, if they cannot agree between them to adjourn at a 
specified time, he may adjourn them ; he receives the ambassadors and 
other public ministers ; commissions all the officers of the United States, 
and must take care that the laws are faithfully executed. 

The fifth grand division of the government is defined in section one of 
Article III. to be " the judicial power of the United States," which, as 
therein stated, " shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior 
courts as the congress may from time to time ordain or establish." 

The first grand division of the powers of the general government having 
been established solely for the purpose of amending the federal constitu- 
tion, it cannot exercise any other powers but this one, and only this after 
it has been requested to do so by those other powers referred to in the 
constitution. 

The second grand division of power having been established for the 
purpose of ascertaining the will of a majority of the people with regard to 
■who shall serve them as rulers and representatives of their wishes with 
regard to the management of their public affairs, they cannot exercise any 
other powers but this. Their powers having been granted them by the 
■whole people in their several organic acts, of general as well as of special 
powers, they cannot exercise any other powers without injury to them- 
selves and others who, as their equals, may disagree with them in such 
matters. 

This division of the powers of the government having been thus created, 
those whom it places in power can only act to the extent which has been 
defined in the organic act. A mere majority of the people is not compe- 
tent to take in its hands the just rights of the minority. Such majority is 
only authorized by the constitution to act upon matters which may be in 
their nature, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and 
cannot, therefore, extend its powers beyond it, or assume the right to act 
under the law of nature, or the " higher law," as it is sometimes called. 
They (the majority) may advocate a measure of public policy, and elect 
men to offices under the national government ; but if the enforcement of 
that measure of public policy would be a violation of the fundamental 
laws of the land, it cannot be enforced, even if the majority has given 
its sanction to such enforcement. If the violation of the fundamental laws 
should proceed from the enforcement of such measure, by a branch of the 
government which is not empowered by such laws to exercise such powers 
against another branch, the majority has no right to even advocate such 
measures, much less enforce them. By doing so, they not only intermed- 
dle with the affairs of their equals, but may endanger their interests, by 
creating a false prejudice against them, which might end in the most bitter 
hatred of one against the other. If such majority of the people should suc- 
ceed in electing a majority of the represeutatfves in the congress of the 
United States, or in the legislatures of the several states, or in any partic- 
ular state, such majority cannot exercise powers which are not expressly 
conferred by the constitution under which they act and receive their 
functions. The legislative power and the majority, both having received 
their powers fi-om the whole people, cannot, of course, exercise any powers 
not granted to them. If they did, they would assume an equality of power 
with their superiors and creators. 

A majority not having the power to remit the restrictions of the funda- 
mental laws of the land, it is certainly reasonable to refuse to a mere 
plurality the exercise of such power, although it might be able to elect a 
majority of the representatives in congress, or members of the various 
legislatures. 



— 15 — 

When the people elect an officer of the federal or state governments, 
they elect him for a particular purpose, and by virtue of particular powers, 
only and specially invested in them. And, although such officer may 
receive every vote in the district he is elected to represent, he is unauthor- 
ized to go beyond the powers for which he has been elected. The greater 
number of the votes cast, is required to insure his election over that 
of his opponent, to fill a position, the duties of which have been estab- 
lished by the whole people, before he could have been elected at all. He 
cannot, therefore, claim to act under the "higher law," as interpreted by 
himself It Avas not the " higher law " which placed him there, nor was it 
the "higher law" which he has sworn to obey. He was placed in his 
position under the organic law, and he must act under it, or resign his 
position back to its original creators, if he is not willing to be governed, 
and abide by, such restrictions as it imposes upon him. 

The third grand division of power being that of the congress of the 
United States, the powers which are conferred upon this grand division 
are described in section eight of Article I. of the constitution, which says 
that "the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, 
imports, and excises, pay debts, provide for the common defence and 
general welfare of the United States, borrow money, regulate commerce, 
establish naturalization and bankrupt laws, coin money, regulate the value 
of both domestic and foreign coins, fix the standard of weights and 
measures, provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and 
current coin of the nation, establish post offices and post routes, promote 
the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to 
authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective wu'itiiigs and 
discoveries, constitute new courts inferior to the supreme court, define and 
punish piracies and ^^felonies committed on the high seas, and ofiences 
against the laws of nations, declare war, grant letters of marque and 
reprisal, make rules concerning captures on land and water, raise and 
support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for governing 
and regulating the land and naval forces, provide for calling forth the 
militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel 
invasions, provide for the organization of the militia, exercise all legislative 
power over the District of Columbia, all places purchased by the United 
States by the consent of the legislature of the state in which it shall be, 
for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other need- 
ful buildings, prohibit any time after 1808 the migration of white men or 
the importation of negroes, determine the time of choosing electors and 
the day on which they shall give their votes for president and vice-presi- 
dent, declare the punishment of treason, admit new states into the Union, 
dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the terri- 
tory or other property belonging to the United States ; with the President, 
it shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of govern- 
ment, and protect each of them from invasion and domestic violence, make 
its own rules for the regulation of its business when in session ; and make 
all laws which shall be necessary, and for carrying into execution the 
foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the 
government of the United States, or in any department or olficer thereof" 

The fourth grand division of the powers of government being the 
executive, we will state that the constitution defines these powers to be 
that of carrying out or enforcing the laws enacted by congress and such 
other matters as we have referred to above. 

The fifth grand division — the judiciary — is empowered by the constitu- 



^ 



— 16 — 

tion to decide upon all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, 
the laws of the United States, and treaties made or which shall be made 
under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public 
ministers and consuls ; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; 
to controversies to which the United States shall be a party ; to controver- 
sies between two or more states ; between a state and citizens of another 
state ; between citizens of different states ; between citizens of the same state, 
claiming lands under grants of different states ; and between a state or the 
citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In Article XI. of 
the amendments to the constitution, the powers of the supreme corut are 
defined not "to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prose- 
cuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by 
citizens or subjects of any foreign state." 

The several powers here refei'red to, as belonging to the different grand 
divisions of the government, are so specifically defined that we do not 
believe any one can go astray in construing them. And any measure 
which does not conform to them under their proper head, cannot be con- 
sidered subjected to them, but to some other power not directly referred 
to in the constitution. That power consists of the several states, which 
we referred to in our quotations from Article X. of the amendments to the 
constitution. 

When the people of the several states were agitating the question of 
establishing a general government during the existence of the confedera- 
tion, they were not influenced to the support of such an organization from 
a wish to create one which should interfere with their state or territorial 
affiiirs, nor did they intend that its powers should be such as to enable the 
people of one state to meddle with the local affairs of the people of another. 
The whole controversy which led to the formation of the present govern- 
ment, is fully set forth in the report of a committee appointed by the con- 
gress of the confederation, which consisted of IMr. Monroe, Mr. Spaight, 
Mr. Houstoun, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. King. Mr. Monroe, the cliairman 
of this committee, made a report to the congress of the confederacy, on 
Wednesday, July 13, 1785. In that report it was maintained, that the 
states could not become prosperous unless there was established more 
equanimity in their internal commerce among themselves, and as well, 
"with foreign countries. The committee held that " The common principle 
upon which a friendly commercial intercourse is conducted between inde- 
pendent nations is that of reciprocal advantages, and if this is not obtained, 
it becomes the duty of the losing party to make such further regulations, 
consistently with the failh of treaties, as will remedy the evil and secure 
its interests. If, then, the commercial regulations of any foreign power 
contravene the interests of any particular state — if they refuse admittance 
to its produce into its parts upon the same terms that the state admits its 
manufactures here — what course will it take to remedy the evil ? If it 
makes similar regulations to counteract those of that power, by reciprocating 
the advantages which it feels, by impost or otherwise, will it produce the 
desired eflfect? will they enter into similar regulations and make it a 
common cause? On the contrary will they not, in pursuit of the same 
local policy, avail themselves of this circumstance to turn it to their par- 
ticular advantage? Tims, then, we behold tiie i>everal states taking sepa- 
rate measures in pursuit of their particular interests in opposition to the 
regulations of foreign powers, and separately ;iiding those powers to defeat 
the regulations of ^'ach other; for, unless the .-states act together, there is 
no plan of policy into which they can separately enter, which tliey will not 



— 11 — 

be separately interested to defeat, and, of course, all their measures must 
prove vain and abortive." 

To remedy the evils here complained of, Mr. Monroe recommended the 
states to confer upon the congress the sole and exclusive right and power 
of determining on peace and wai", except when a state is invaded ; of 
rendering and receiving ambassadors ; entering into treaties and alliances; 
of regulating the trade of the states, as well with foreign nations as with 
each other, and of laying such impost and duties upon imports and exports 
as may be necessary for the purpose ?" 

It is evident, from these and other acts of the Fathers of the Republic, 
that their whole object in forming the present government was that of 
advancing the commercial interests of the various states, not by interfering 
with their local affiiirs, but solely by exercising a supervision over those 
matters which had, or might have, a direct effect upon the extensive lead- 
ing interests of them all. Tliey did not design that the general government 
should use its powers for the purpose of controlling the progress of those 
interests, either collectively or separately, but solely to protect them from 
injury through the influence of foreign powers, and the selfish policy of 
the states in their intercourse with each other. We defy any one to refer 
to one clause in the constitution which does not bear on its face pfoof that 
this was the object and the only one. There existed among th6 states a 
uniformity of interest, and it was necessary that there should be a unifor- 
mity of effort to advance those interests, which could only be obtained by 
a uniformity of protection. 



CHAPTER V. 

DOES THE CONSTITUTION I'ROTECT SLAVE AND HIRED LABOR? 

The establishment of our present system of government by the people 
of the United States, was for the purpose of securing to themselves the 
protection of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ;" to protect their 
lives from the assaults of their fellow-men, who were strangers or ene- 
mies ; to protect their liberty from the assaults of tiie government, by 
restricting its powers within certain clearly defined limits, and by granting 
to it certain superior powers, by the exereise of which it can concentrate 
its whole force to defeat the attacks of foreign enemies; to protect them 
in their pursuit of happiness, by securing to them the right to employ their 
mental and physical powers in any manner and to such an extent as they 
may choose, without being interfered with either by their fellow-citizens or 
by strangers and enemies. Now, as these were the objects for which the 
people formed the present system of government under which we live, we 
have only to ascertain the extent of the powers thus granted. 

In the protection to life the people souglit to secure to themselves 
immunity from any attempts being made U])on their lives by any one, by 
establishing so strong a government as would deter such attempts, by the 
enactment and enforcement of certain penalties to be inflicted for llie 
committing of such acts. To j^rotect their liberty, they sought to establish 
certain defined rules of action, by which they could be regulated in the 
exercise of their natural rights, without being subject to the selfish inter- 
ference of their f'eiiovv-men, so long as their acts were not in violation of 
the common interests — which violation they wished to be defined in no 
uncertain way, so that all could be subject to that established definition. 

2 



— 18 — 

To protect themselves in the pursuit of happiness — by reserving to them- 
selves the ri<i;ht to adopt their own particular manner of conducting 
their own affairs, and maintain their own particular opinions, but not 
by a vindictive attack upon the opinions of others. Each man being 
created equal, all are entitled to equal rights and privileges. But man, 
being inclined to regard his personal interests more than tliose of others, 
it is right that he should establish certain rules by which he will be com- 
pelled to respect the rights of others, and enforce that respect for his own 
rights to which he is entitled. Such rules can only be just when made 
to affect all equally, recognizing none as being entitled to greater privileges 
than all the rest. 

The question to be considered is, whether the constitution protects or 
condemns either the hired or slave labor system, or both. The history of 
the country proves that it protects them both, or they could not have 
existed during the whole time of the operation of our system of govern- 
ment. It may be claimed that the constitution does not protect either 
of the systems, but only allows them to exist, because they are each 
founded upon and subject to the local governments of the states, and, as 
such, are compelled to look to their local governments for support, and 
they in turn must look to the constitution and federal government for 
their suppoi^. 

We hold that the constitution of the United States does support both 
these systems of labor, and that in consequence of that power thus vested, 
the general government is compelled to resist any attempt which may be 
made of a character calculated to injure them or either of them, whether 
such attempts originate from those departments of the government which 
are established by the provisions of the constitution or from the people of 
any of the various states. 

The first direct reference to the support of the two systems, which we 
find in the constitution, is in the ninth section of Article 1. of that instru- 
ment, which says that the " migration or importation of such persons as 
any of the states shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by 
the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but 
a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for 
each [lerson." 

The term " migration," as here used, rofejs to the migration of Euro- 
peans or others, who are whites, and as such, are not subject to be made 
slaves, and who are intended to be used as laborers, under the '• hired 
system." The term " importation " denotes slaves, which are thus classed 
as property, which only can be imported. Free men emigrate, they are not 
imported ; and these constructions are borne out by the arguments which 
were used by the framers of the constitution at the time its adoption was 
under consideration. The delegates in convention from^ Massachusetts 
maintained the right of their constituents to import slaves from Africa into 
any of the United States, and they refused to relinquish that right, main- 
taining the doctrine that " inasmuch as the citizens of Massachusetts, 
llhode Island, and Connecticut had invested large sums of money in com- 
mon on such importations, their trade should not be prohibited at a time 
when such prohibition would ruin them, by making the greater part of 
their property used in such traffic wholly useless to tliem or to any others." 
They also maintained that the people of other states were doing them 
injustice when they attempted to abolish a business which^had existed so 
many years, and which had been protected by all the leading men of the 
country, both by the enactment of laws for its protection and by the 



— 19 — 

countenance and support of the most enterprising merchants of the leading, 
commercial port in the colonies. 

It is evident, tlierefore, that when the people adopted the constitution, 
they intended to authorize the "migration" of hired laborers and the 
"importation" of slave laborers. They did not intend to suppress eitlier 
of those systems, although they authorized congress to suppress the migra- 
tion and importation of hired and slave labor after the year 1808. Yet 
there is nothing in the constitution which empowers that congress to 
suppress the system of hired or slave labor, or either of them, as they 
existed in any of the states. The granting of such a power would have 
been manifestly unjust, and ruinous to the best interests of the whole 
country. If the constitution granted to the people the right to import 
slaves into any of the states, and sell them to the people of any of the 
other states, it could not afterward deprive them of their ownership with- 
out outraging their rights to property. If it was acknowledged by the 
framers of the constitution that it would be unjust to the people of Massa- 
chusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island to destroy their slave trade, would 
it not be equally unjust to deprive the people of Virginia or the Carolinas, 
who had purchased those slaves, of any right which would impair their 
title to the properly so bought? If the people of the Northern States 
had secured to them the right to import slaves, and sell them to their 
brethren of the Southern States, is not the title of those purchasers to 
hold those slaves according to law, as good, and as much to be respected 
as the title of the importers ? Surely it is strange that any one can dis- 
pute this right. 

When this compromise was inserted in the con.stitution for the protection 
of the slave trade, there existed in every state where slavery was estab- 
lished, a law conferring upon the owners of slaves the right to hold their 
slaves for life, and to hold the children of every slave woman also as 
slaves. Now, as these laws existed at the time of that compromise with 
the slave importers of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, the 
fi-amers of that compromise, and the parties to it, knew very well that all 
the slaves so imported would be subject to those local laws ; they were 
therefore a party to the enforcement of those laws, and received in com- 
pensation a higher price for their merchandise, because the purchaser 
knew that the children would be slaves as soon as they were born. 
And when the bill of sale for slaves was given by these importers, they, 
as members of the body politic formed by the constitution, bound them- 
selves to maintain the rights of the purchasers and their successors 
against all other persons. 

But the framers of the constitution go further than this. After they 
had thus authorized the importation of slaves, they inserted another clause 
which directly acknowledges the existence of slave property, by defining 
the basis of representation and direct taxation, which they say shall be 
apportioned among " the several states which may be included within this 
Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined 
by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to 
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths 
of all other persons." Now, when the writer said " free persons," including 
those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding the Indians, he 
left no other persons in the United States to which he could refer, except 
the slave population, three fifths only of which shall be enumerated as a 
basis for taxation and representation. And when he used the words 
"may be included within this Union," he evidently designed that an 



— 20 — 

indefinite number of new states should be admitted with or without 
slavery. 

The constitution having been adopted as the fundamental law of the 
land, and it being designed to continue it as such for all time, unless its 
provisions are in part changed, agreeable to the constitution itself — such 
change not having been made, we hold that both hired labor and slave 
labor are maintained and supported to-day by the federal constitution. 
The clause says, that those bound to service for a term of years, and the 
slaves in the ratio of three to five, shall be represented in the congress of 
the United IStates ; and if they are represented, they become, of course, a 
component part of the general government, and consequently entitled to 
the protection of the government and the people, and also entitled to the 
benefit conferred upon persons in their ])ositions, according to the provis- 
ions of the constitution to which we have referred, and subject to the 
restrictions placed upon them by the whole constitution, until those restric- 
tions are taken off, or modified by due legal course, as prescribed by the 
constitution itself. 

In the tliird section of Article IV. of the constitution, there is another 
clause which is intended directly to protect these two systems of "hired" and 
"slave '' labor, and to secure the master or owner in the possession of his 
rights. We read that "No person held to service or labor in one state, 
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any 
law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but 
•ehall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor 
is due." Now this section does not only deprive the states of the power 
to destroy the rights of the people in other states to their laborers, but it 
absolutely directs that such rights are not susceptible of being questioned 
or brought into controversy, in consequence of any law or regulation which 
.liny state might make or adopt. 

The right to hold such persons to labor, although they may have gone 
into anotlier state, cannot be settled by tlie laws of the state into which 
such persons have escaped, but by the laws and regulations of the state 
in which the}'' were held to service. Hence, if the constitution maintains 
the right of the master to hold his slave, even if he escapes into another 
state, it will of course maintain his right in the state where the property 
belongs, if its authority is called upon so to do. 

If either of these systems is attacked by any state, or by the people of 
any state, the congress of the United States is required by the federal 
constitution to pass such laws as may be deemed necessary to protect 
them, or either of them, from such assaults. This power is granted to the 
congress by the eighteenth paragraph of section eight of Article I., which 
says that " the congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be 
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, 
and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the 
United States, or in any department or oliicer thereof" 

The constitution having been made an instrument by which the migration 
and im])ortation of laborers and slaves was prolonged twenty years beyond 
the adoption of the constitution, it is certainly reaso)iable to suppose that 
the powers which have been created by tliat instrument sliould be obliged 
to protect all persons who have acquired interests under that clause of the 
federal constitution. 



^- — 21 



CHAPTEll Vr. 
OP THE po\vp:rs vested in congress and the people of the 

TEPa^ITOKIES OVER THK INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY. 

Having thus explained the principles upon which our present govern- 
ment has been established, and by which the exercise of its various powers 
are I'egulated, we will proceed to the special consideration of the territo- 
rial question as connected with the powers of congress and the people 
and legislatures of tlie territories, basing our arguments wholly upon the 
principles hei-ein explained and the provisions of the federal constitution. 

The people, having the right to form a government for themselves, and 
having formed that government, it becomes their duty to sustain it under 
all circumstances, and against all opposition, whether it proceed from a 
part of the people or from foreign enemies. If a government is neces- 
sary for the protection of man and his interests, it is necessary for man to 
protect that government, especially if it is of his own formation. 

The whole people of the United States, having established the federal 
constitution as the fundamental law of. the land, we are bound to consider 
its several provisions as so many concessions made and compacts entered 
into by the people, for the public good, and not as so many restrictions 
upon their personal rights. If they have relinquished any particular 
right, they have done so because it was deemed proper that they should do 
so'for the good of themselves and those who might come after them, and 
not because they acknowledged a superiority of riglits or powers in any 
particular class of men. In authorizing a limited number of tlie people 
to rule over all the others, they sought only to create a unity of power, 
by a unity of action in all matters wherein that unity was essential to the 
public welfare and their general interests. 

If they had merely wished to establish a government for the advantage 
and protection of a particular class of the people, they would have adopted 
but one governing power — instead of diffusing it among so many different 
divisions of the people, confining their powers to particular localities or 
kind of measures, and regulating the whole by certain restricted principles 
of action. 

The whole people having been the creators of the government, it is 
proper that its power should be made use of for the benefit of the Avhole 
people, except in those cases where they have made provisions for a dif- 
ference of action for the benefit of different sections in which a change of 
interests has been made ijy the people themselves whilst in the exercise of 
their own reserved powers. These interests are of two kinds : first, indi- 
vidual interests ; second, collective interests. Individual interests are 
those whicli pertain to a man as such, whilst his collective interests are 
those which belong to him as a citizen of a particular state, and of the 
United States. His individual interests are those which arise from the 
exercise of tliose rights which nature has endowed him with, and which 
cannot be restricted witliout his voluntary consent by any one or by any 
earthly power. ' 

His collective interests cannot be restricted without depriving him of his 
just claims against the government for protection. 

The individual interests of men consist in the full enjoyment of life,. 
liberty, and the possession and use of property, while their collective in- 



22 — 

terests consist in the full protection of the government whilst enjoying 
their individual rights. 

If there was no government, each man would be compelled to protect 
his individual rights against the encroachments of his fellow men. This 
would leave the weak entirely at the mercy of the strong. 

The establishment of a government does not, therefore, confer upon its 
rulers power to restrict the people in the exei'cise of their just rights, ex- 
cept in that of protecting them by their own physical power, nor does it 
authorize such rulers to interfere with the ownership of property, whether 
real or personal, only so far as it may be necessary to secure to each per- 
son a clearly-defined ownership therein. But this ownership cannot be 
interfered with in such a manner as to destroy vested rights either in the 
ownership to property or the use thereof 

The Constitution having been so formed as to encourage the advance- 
ment of the two systems of hired and slave labor, the governments acting 
under it are bound to extend their protection over them. 

In the United States we have but two kinds of laws, and two kinds of 
government which are authorized to put in force these laws. These two 
kinds of laws are : first, political laws ; second, civil laws. Political laws 
are those which emanate entirely from the national government, possessing 
a general influence upon the affiiirs of the whole country. Civil laws are 
those which emanate entirely from the state governments, possessing an 
influence which extends only throughout the limits of the state in which 
they have been enacted. The first of these laws receive their entire sup- 
port from the people as citizens of the United States, and the second from 
the people as citizens of the several states. The quality of citizens of 
the United States having been created by the federal constitution, and 
their powers regulated upon a certain defined basis, they cannot exercise 
any powers not therein clearly conferred upon them, nor can they exer- 
cise those powers except tlirough the form of government as laid down in 
that instrument, as set forth in tliis treatise. The quality of citizens of a 
state having been conferred upon the people by the sovereign powers of 
the state, their rights as citizens cannot be restricted or impaired. The 
powers whicli they have conferred upon the general government having 
ieen so conferred by their own free will, do not come in conflict with their 
just rights, so long as the exercise of those powers is restricted within 
the limits set forth by the organic law under which they have been estab- 
lished. 

The fathers did not attempt to establish any new powers of government. 
They merely transferred the right to exercise certain powers from the in- 
dependent governments of the various states to that of a national govern- 
ment, which they created for that purpose. They did this " in order to 
form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, 
provide for the ommon defence, promote the general welfare, and secure 
the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity." It was under 
this preamble that the iederal constitution was established, and all its 
provisions must be so construed as to promote the objects therein stated. 
By doing this, we consolidate our national power and strengthen our com- 
mon defence against the attack of domestic and Ibreign foes, by uniting in 
the exercise of those powers which are necessary for the purposes of such 
defence. To make the powers here conferred more efficient, it was au- 
thorized to collect from all tlie States a sutficient revenue to meet the 
expenses incurred by it in the fulfillment of that important duty. It was 
also neces.sary for the domestic tranquillity " that there should be a uniform- 



— 2a — 

ity of commercial relations between the states, and between tliem and 
foreign countries." To secure these ends, the general government was 
authorized to exercise all control over those relations, without favor or 
partiality towards any particular locality or branch of trade. 

The powers of the several states not being conferred upon them by the 
federal government, but solely by the people of each State, they must re- 
tain all powers not expressly transferred by them to the general govern- 
ment. Whenever it becomes necessary, therefore, for us to define the 
powers of the general government, we should confine our investigations 
■wholly to those powers which tlie states have conferred upon the govern- 
ment, and not to the powers which are conferred upon the states. The 
federal constitution is not a compact between the federal government and 
the states, but between several states, wherein the states, or the people 
of the states, voluntarily relinquish certain expressed political rights or 
powers to a body politic of their own creation, and for their own individual 
and collateral interests. 

Before the present form of government was established, there existed 
between the States a compact which was, as we have before stated, called 
^'The Articles of Confederation," under which the general powers of the 
states were exercised by the confederacy, through the means of a con- 
gress, the members of which were appointed by the people of the several 
states to represent them in that body. 

During the existence of this confederacy a controversy arose between 
the states with regard to the boundaries of some of the states and the 
size of their territories. The people of those states the boundaries 
of which were confined within the narrow limits of civilization, con- 
tended that the w41d lands which were held by Virginia and other states 
should become the common property of the people of all the States, and 
be held in trust by the confederacy for the exclusive benefit of the whole 
people. The promoters of this controversy maintained that the States 
thus holding immense tracts of land could, " by selling on the most rea- 
sonable terms a small proportion of the lands in question, draw into their 
treasuries vast sums of money, and, in proportion to the sums arising from 
such sales, would be enabled to lessen their taxes. Lands comparatively 
cheap, and taxes comparatively low with the taxes of an adjacent state, 
would quickly drain the state thus disadvantageously circumstanced of its 
most useful inhabitants ; its wealth and its consequence in the wall of the 
confederated states would sink, of course." They further maintained that 
the state, and the people of the states, were " justly entitled to a right in 
common to the territories, and that the same hath been, or may be gained, 
from the native Indians or other powers, by the blood and treasure of all, 
and ought, therefore, to be a common estate." 

Under this doctrine, the citizens of the several states, who are also citi- 
zens of the United States, become tenants in common in all the territories, 
whether they emigrate into such territories or not. And when Virginia 
and other states made a transfer to the United States of their respective 
territorj-., they did so in conformitv wjth this doctrine and no other. i 

In making these transfers of their teirltoi-y, sofiie of the states attached 
certain conditions to tllcm, all of wl-^^-h were acceded to by the general 
;government, and ,,p,^, ^j^^,, ^ladc a part of the general compact. 'lu the 
Jcaufter j^^^^jg ^^ Virginia of its noithwcAM-n territory, a clause was iti 
feerted wliich precluded slavery from suc'fi territory. This compact be- 
tween Virginia and the general government was first enacted by the legis- 
lature of Virginia, whilst that state held the exclusive legislative power 



— 24: — 

over such territory, and wlien it was accepted by the congress, under the 
confederacy, it was named the "Ordinance of 1787,'' and continues to 
be called such to tliis day, although tlie congress of the present govern- 
ment has also acknowledged it. This result has been produced by reason 
of the new congress having merely confirmed the engagement of tlie con- 
federacy, and not that it lias assumed to act from the legislative powers 
granted to it by the federal constitution, except so far as it was empowered 
by paragraj)!! first of Article VI. of the constitution to fulfill all the en- 
gagements of the confederacy, wliich says : "All debts contracted and en- 
gagements entered into before the adoption of this constitution shall be as 
valid against the United States under this constitution as under the con- 
federation." 

The argument made use of in the legislature of Virginia by those who 
supported this ordinance upon its passage in that body was, that by the 
prohibition of slavery in the territories so transferred to the United States, 
they would deter the peo])le of Virginia from leaving the state and going 
to the territories, because they could not take their slaves v/ith tliem. 

This clause, which prohibited slavery in the northwestern territory, can- 
not be claimed to be an act of the general government, either under the 
articles of confederation or the present constitution. It is simply the act 
of the legislature of the State of Virginia, made at a time when the sove- 
reign powers of that state extended over the northwestern territory. The 
legislature of Virginia had repeatedly refused to transfer its territory to the 
United States before the final act was passed, and when it was passed the 
members of the legislature were influenced wholly by a wish to allay the 
ill leeling whicli had been created in Maryland, l^elawarfc, and other states 
by her refusal so to transfer this territory. Wiien the legislature of Vir- 
ginia made the transfer, and inserted the clause therein which precluded 
slavery in such territory, it only exercised a power which belonged to all 
the states at the time, and wliich belongs to them all now. And when the 
congress accepted the articles of transfer with this clause in them, it merely 
acknowledged that such power was vested in the states, and that it accepted 
the trust as tlierein set forth. 

It cannot be claimed that congress, by that act, assumed the right to 
prohibit slavery in the territories of tiie United States. Neither can the 
confirmation of this ordinance by the congress established under the con- 
stitution be considered as an assumption of power over slavery in the ter- 
ritories. This ordinance was a compact, or an engagement, which was en- 
tered intobetwecn the State of Virginia and the confederacy, and as such 
the new government was bound to fulfill it in all its particulars. 

It has been maintained tiiat the action of the Fathers in connection 
with this ordinance of 1767, proves conclusively that they considered 
slavery to be a local and not a national institution. We hold that it proves 
the contrary, and that their action in this matter sustains the doctrine we 
advocate. If tlie right to hold slaves was not a national right, why did they 
seek to prohibit slavery in the North-Western Territory before it passed 
from the control of the State of Virginia? If the people of the territory 
had no right to hcjld slaves, why should the legislature of Virginia attempt 
to debar them from doing so? If it required an action of congress to 
establish slavery in the territories, why should the Republicans ask congress 
to prohibit it there, when all that was needed was for it to refuse to estab- 
lish slavery, and it could not go there. When Virginia transferred her 
title to the North- Western Territory to the United States, the rights of the 
people in such teriltory became subject to the laws of the United States 



and not to those of Virginia. That state and her people lost their local 
rights in the territory, only retaining their rights as citizens of the United 
States. Now if the right to hold negroes as slaves is only a state right, 
all that Virginia had to do to abolish that right was to place the territory 
under the conti'ol of the national government, and thus place it beyond the 
control of the state. It is evident, then, that the Fathers held that the 
rijiht to hold negroes as slaves was a national right, the institution having 
been established by the national government of England when the states 
were merely colonies belonging and subject to that government. The 
rip-ht to import negroes and sell them into slavery was also a national 
ri^ht, and remains such now. But as the whole people of the United 
States, when forming the ))resent government, inserted a clause in the 
constitution which conccdi-s to congress the right to prohibit it after the 
year 1808, the exercise of ihis|righf has been debarred by congress; but 
if this prohibition was removed, any one of the states could prohibit its 
own citizens from importing negroes to the same extent that it can now 
prohibit slavery. But if those citizens were to engage in the slave trade 
and carry on their business in another state where the trade was not pro- 
hibited, they could not be made to suffer in consequence of having done 
so, by the laws of their own state. Neither can a citizen of New York 
be made to suffer for holding slaves under the laws of another state, 
althouo'h the laws of, New York prohibit slavery within its jurisdiction. 
The reason that this is the law, is because the right to hold negroes as 
slaves, or to import them, is national. No state can enforce a law of its 
own enacting, which prohibits its citizens from holding slaves in another 
state where slavery is maintained, although such citizen should continue 
to reside in such state after becoming a slaveholder. It cannot do this, 
because the right to hold .-hives is national, and the state or the national 
government cannot make it a penal offence, because there is no organic 
law to be protected from the acts of such citizens. Slavery having been 
established and maintained as a national institution, and there having been 
no means provided for its abolishment by the national government in the 
constitution, and the powers of the states having been restricted to their 
own boundaries, there exists no power in either the national or state gov- 
ernments to abolish the rights of the citizens of the United States to hold 
property in negroes, in any state or other domain belonging to the United 
States, wherein there has been no action on the part of a regular state 
government, duly authorized to act as such, for the abolishment of such 
kinds of slavery. 

In the consideration of the right of congress to interfere with slavery 
in the tei'ritories, we should not forget that congress is merely a creature 
of the constitution, and that the constitution is merely a creature of the 
people of the states. 

If the general government had created the states, the case would have 
been different. In that case they could not exercise any powers which 
were not expressly conferred upon them, for the reason that they might, 
by so doing, encroach upon the reserved powers of the general govern- 
ment. But the contrary being the case, as regards the general government, 
it is placed under precisely the same restrictions. If the people had 
intended to confer upon congress any powers over the institution of 
slavery, they would have so expressed it in speciiic terms, and not left the 
matter to be inferred. 

One of the great objects, in forming the general government, being to 
establish a uniformity in our external commerce, the states could not do 



— 26 — 

otherwise than concede to congress the power of regulating or abolishing 
the slave trade. But when the question of slavery itself was considered, 
it would have been folly for them to have conferred upon congress any 
power over it. There existed already vested rights in slavery in all the 
states in the Union, and those rights could not be more I'espected, and the 
general wishes of the people more regarded by the congress than they 
could be by the state governments. 

To maintain the determination of the Fathers to continue the slave 
trade for twenty years after the constitution was framed, we have only to 
refer to Article V., which prescribes the means by which the constitution 
can be amended. After explaining the course to be pursued, where it is 
proposed to make amendments, the clause is closed by stating that it is 
" provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one 
thousand eight hundred and eight, shall in any manner affect the first and 
fourth clauses in the ninth section of the First Article," both of which are 
referred to in this article. 

From the tenor of these clauses, it is evident that a compromise was 
entered into between the slave-holders and the slave-traders. The slave- 
holders wished to abolish the slave trade, but the traders would not agree 
to do so. The slaveholders claimed the right to count their slaves in the 
enumeration on which to base their representation in congress. The slave- 
traders refused to grant them this right, holding to the doctrine that they 
had as much right to claim the same privih^ijc for their horses and oxen, 
as slaves were nothing but property, and should not be accounted a basis 
of representation in congress any more than any other property. The 
slaveholders were equally as determined in their opposition to the contin- 
uance of the slave trade. They held that such importations were nothing 
but savages, and unfit to be thrown into a civilized community, and that, in 
conse([uence, their importation and distribution among the slaves of this 
country might lead to the most disastrous results, besides which, the con- 
tinual supply of fresh slaves was not required, when those already here 
could not be made to pay the expense of keeping them. 

At that time the .slaves were considered a burden upon the people 
instead of a benefit. The application which they could make of their 
labor was not sufficiently remunerative to pay their owners for keeping 
them. The production of cotton had not then become a leading one. The 
cotton-gin and other important improvements now used in its culture had 
not been invented then ; nor wei'e there at that time any such machines 
as those in use now for manufacturing cotton fabrics, and which have 
•wrought such a change in the demand for cotton goods. The Fathers 
-considered the negroes to be a curse upon the country, and were anxious 
to rid themselves of the curse as soon as possible. They did not want to 
increase their numbers by new importations. But the New England 
slave-traders were not disposed to subject themselves to a loss, by making 
ihelr investments in the trade worthless through its abolishment. 

Thus, differences of opinion between the framers of the constitution were 
maintained with equal vigor by both parties. For a time there appeared 
to exist no possible chance for settling the controversy. But at last it was 
agreed that the New P^ngland slave-traders should continue the importation 
of slaves to 1808, in consideration of which, the New England delegates 
agreed that the slaves should be enumerated in forming the basis of rep- 
resentation in congress, at the rate of three for each five, provided the 
basis of taxatioa was placed upon the same enumeration. The slaveholders 
finally consented to this, and were thus compelled to pay taxes upon a 



— 27 — 

basis, and to support the slave trade, in direct opposition to their own 
wishes and best intei'ests. 

Now as it required the whole people of the United States, as it is stated 
it did, in the preamble to the constitution, to extend the slave trade to 
1808, it will require the whole people to annul the effects of that exten- 
sion. When the people assumed the right to throw a certain kind of 
property into the market for sale, they also assumed the obligations neces- 
sary to protect the rights of the purchasers in such property. They also 
guaranteed to them the right to enjoy that property in the fullest extent 
that any citizen could enjoy any other property. If he should deem it to 
be his interest to go into the territories and take with him that property, 
the congress is bound to protect him and his property so long as the terri- 
tories remain as such. It cannot be said that the present slaves are not 
those which wei-e imported under this compromise, and the obligation is, 
therefore, removed ; for when that compromise was made, the laws in every 
state in the Union made slaves of the children born to slaves, which was 
thus made a part of the compact between the whole people. 

It is generally conceded by all classes of sane politicians that congress 
has no power over slavery in the states. They admit that it is a local 
institution, and subject only to local laws. If it is a local institution, and 
subject to local laws, what right has congress to interfere with it at all ? 
The congress of the United States was not established by the states for the 
purpose of building up a superior power to themselves, which should in 
time usurp their rights and subvert their powers. They created the 
general govei-nnment solely for the purpose of combining their public 
efforts against a foreign foe, and neutralizing their internal contentions, to 
such an extent as to avoid the possibility of their ever coming to arms 
one against the other upon mere state controversies or international 
antagonisms. 

There is not a clause in the constitution which requires this nation to be 
divided into state governments, and yet the nation is so divided. This 
shows conclusively that the constitution, and the government which has 
been established under it, is nothing more than an organization created by 
the people of the states for a certain and specific purpose, and not as a 
ruling power over them. The states are referred to, in that instrument, in 
the same manner that all parties are who have agreed to form a part- 
nership to can-y on any mercantile or manufacturing business. The 
article of agreement does not create the members of the partnership ; it 
merely defines the formation and rules of their partnership, and the 
manner in which it is to be conducted. No one can claim that the mere 
formation of such a partnership entitles the firm to interfere with the 
personal affairs of the members of the firm, except so far as the provisions 
of the agreement itself may directly authorize such interference for the 
benefit of all the partners. 

When the states entered into the compact, they did not intend to submit 
their private interests to the action or control of each other. Each state 
expected to retain all the powers which it held as an independent state, 
excepting those Avhich it agreed to confer upon the new government. For 
this reason they established the senate, by allowing each state, whether 
large or small, to send two members to that body, to represent and pro- 
tect their respective interests, regardless of their commercial wealth or 
population. 

Whilst the general government was acting under the articles of confed- 
eration, the congress was compelled to submit all its acts, except that of 



— 28 — 

adjournment, to the states before they became laws, and if at least nine 
of the states did not adopt such act, they could not be enforced as laws. 
The omission of this clause in the present constitution constitutes the main 
difference between the two instruments. 

The clause of the constitution which confers upon congress the power 
"to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the 
territory or other property belonging to the United States," expressly pro- 
hibits it from interfering with the claims of the several states in the terri- 
tory. If congress cannot interfere with the claims of the several states, 
it cannot confer the power to do so upon others. 

It has been maintained that this clause only refers to the territories be- 
longing to the United .States at the time of the adoption of the constitu- 
tion. This construction appears, at first view, very plausible ; for it is 
certainly reasonable to suppose that, if it was intended to include all other 
territory which might be acquired thereafter by the United States, the 
framers of that instrument would have said, " or which shall be acquired 
hereafter," and thus extended the power of congress, in the same manner 
that they did in Sec. 2 of Art. III., which says, " treaties made, or which 
shall be made." It is our opinion, however, that this clause comprehends 
all the territories owned at this time, and which may be owned by the 
United States at any time thereafter. We assume this to be the case 
upon the hypothesis that the words, "or other property," mean ships,. arm- 
aments of the navy, and fire-arms and other accoutrements of the army, 
public buildings, furniture, and other personal property of a perishable 
nature. Now, if congress was only empowered to make needful rules 
■with regard to the property of this nation held by the government at that 
time, its powers in this particular will do it but little good at this time. 

The powers of congress over these two classes of property, having been 
so restricted as to deny it the right to dispose of it, or to make any rules 
or regulations which would " prejudice any claims of the United States, 
or of any particular state," is sufficient evidence that the powers thus 
granted are not absolute, or even sufficiently strong to justify it in making 
any rules and regulations which would in any manner have a tendency to 
interfere with or "prejudice the claims of any particular state." 

Under this clause, congress is not allowed to interfere, in any manner, 
with the rights of individuals, with respect to their ownership of property, 
except tliat belonging to and arising from the territory ; nor can it increase 
or diminish the intei'est of persons in the ownership of any other property 
which the people thereof may hold, either by direct or indirect legislation. 

The power *' to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States," 
does not imply the right to enact any rule or regiilatiou wliieh would, 
either directly or indirectly, alfect the continued ownership or possession 
and use in the territory of any other property but that which actually be- 
longs to the United States. But when, by due course of law, the general 
government disposes oT all or any part of the territory to the citizens of 
the United States, it then becomes bound to protect them in the posses- 
sion and use of such property, or any other which they may deem it to 
be their interest to bring into the territory, to use, or enjoy the benefits 
arising from its use, in such territory. It caimot assume the power of 
selecting the particular kind of property they siiull bring with them and 
use upon their lands ; nor can it delegate this power to any other legisla- 
tive body, wlji^ch it niay establish in the territory to aid it in carrying 
out its obligations to the settlers of the territory, and the citizens of the 
several states. 



— 29 — 

If the people of the states had intended to confer upon congress, legis- 
lative power over the territories, they would have inserted a clause granting 
such powers in Sec. 3 of Art. IV,, in which congress is duly authorized tc^ 
exercise exclusive legislative power in all cases whatever over the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, and such other places as may belong to the United 
States, and used by it for erecting forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, 
and other needful buildings. We say, if it had been intended to confer 
upon congress legislative power over the territories, the fact would have 
been clearly stated in this section. But as the term legislative power or 
laws is not used in connection with the territories, and the words " or 
other property" being hiserted in connection with the territories, we claim 
that the congress was only empowered to make " all needful rules and 
regulations'' for the preservation of the property belonging to the United 
States from undue waste or decay, and not to legislate against the rights 
and interests of the people of any state or territory. 

If a citizen of South Cai'olina, who owns slaves, should purchase a 
tract of land in any territory, it is to be presumed that he has done so 
with the view of taking a part or the whole of his slaves to cultivate and 
live upon it. This, then, becomes a part of the contract between him 
and the general government, because it constitutes one of the considera- 
tions of the sale. Now, if the people, or any part of them, should inter- 
fere in any manner with his doing so, the government is bound to protect 
him in his rights therein, ju«t the same as it would if they had refused to 
permit him to take his horse upon such land. 

The powers of congress over the territories being thus proscribed to a 
certain limit, it cannot presume to exercise any powers which are at all 
doubtful. All powers which are not clearly conferred upon congress 
are expressly prohibited to it by Art. X., which says, "The powers not 
delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to 
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This 
clause does not confer such powers upon the people of the territorj^, but 
only upon the people of the .states, or the states respectively. If it did 
confer them upon the people of the territories, it should have given them 
the right to exercise such powers. 

When the constitution says, " the states respectively, or to the people," 
it means the states, as such, or the people, as the citizens of such states. 
As we have before stated, the rights of the people are divided into two 
kinds : as, first, individual ; second, collective rights. Their individual 
rgihts are regulated by the state governments, whilst their collective rights 
are regulated by the general government. As the citizens of a state, they 
are allowed to regulate their individual rights according to their own in- 
terests and wishes, through their own state governments, in the affairs of 
which no one has any right to interfere, except the citizens of such state, 
whose interests are nearly identical, because they are subject to the same 
climate, soil, and other local influences of a natural character, As citi- 
zens of the United States, they are allowed to regulate their collective in- 
terests and wishes thro'ugh the United States government, in the affairs of 
which all the people of the United States are empowered to exercise equal 
powers, I'egardless of the climate, soil, or influences belonging to each or 
any particular locality. This power cannot be considered improper, for 
the reason that all the acts of the citizens of the United States arc re- 
stricted to those which are general in their influences, and equally as ap- 
plicable to one section or locality as to another, which result is partially 
sustained through the support of the people as citizens of the United 
States, and not as citizens of a state. 



— 30 — 

We claim, therefore, that inasmuch as the states have not conferred 
upon congress any powers of legislation over the territories, even in a 
general sense, except so far as those general powers which would be and 
are as applicable to the states as to the territories, it cannot legislate in 
any way so as to interfere with the system of slavery in those territories. 
It may enact laws of an organic nature, because such laws are necessary 
to establish within the territories " domestic tranquillity, and promote the 
general welflire," not only for the benefit of the people of the territories, 
but of the states also, by granting to them perfect security when mi- 
grating to the territories with their property, of whatever nature, and 
using it in the same manner, and to the same extent, which they could use 
it in conformity with the laws of the states from whence they migrated. 
This doctrine, or constitutional right, is fully sustained by an express 
clause of the federal constitution, which says that " this constitution, and 
the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; 
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the 
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in 
every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws 
of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." 

We hold, still further, that the citizen of one state has the right to 
pass through any other state or states, taking with him his personal prop- 
erty, of any kind whatsoever ; and, if he chooses to do so, he can sojourn 
in such state or states for a short time, and still retain his property, al- 
though the laws of such state or states may prohibit the citizens thereof 
from holding such property. 

But if a slave owner should migrate into or remain a sufficient length 
of time to entitle him to a citizenship in such states, he 'at once relin- 
quishes his reserved rights under the federal constitution, as a citizen of 
another state. This construction of the rights of citizens belonging to 
a slave state is still further sustained by the second paragraph of Sec. 2 
of Art. IV., which says that " the citizens of each state shall be entitled 
to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." 

When we consider these two clauses in connection with that clause of 
the constitution which prohibits congress from abolishing the slave trade 
until after 1808, we can easily perceive that one state cannot pass laws 
which will deprive the citizen of another state of his rights as the owner 
of slaves, which ownership was acknowledged and established by the con- 
stitution itself, which by this prohibition of congress acknowledged the 
powers of congress to be such as to enable it to abolish the slave trade, 
under its powers over commerce, after 1808. 

Whenever a vested right has been acquired under a local law, the power 
which enacted it having due authority to do so, that right cannot be in- 
fringed upon in any way,by any power whatsoever, unless by the full consent 
of the party possessing such right, and a full consideration is paid 
therefor. The federal constitution itself establishes this rule in Art. 
V. of the amendments to the constitution, which says that " No per- 
son shall be held to answer, &c.. &c., * * * * * ♦ * j^qj. 
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 
law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just 
compensation." To take the property of a citizen of the United 
States, or of any of the states, a due process of law must be taken, and 
that law must be founded upon the principles of the federal constitu- 
tion, before it can be considered a law. The constitution, having recog- 
nized the right of property inislaves, by acknowledging and maintaining 



— 31 — 

their importation, and their sale within the states, no law which will con- 
flict with the rights thus acquired can be maintained, except by the acqui- 
escence of those interested in such property, and whose interests are to 
be aftected by the operations of such law. 

If the people of one state should abolish slavery in such state, they can- 
not include in their act the slaves which belong to a citizen of another 
state, in which slavery exists. The law can only apply to the citizens of, 
and the slaves held by them in the state in which the law was enacted. 
Slavery having existed in all the colonies before and after the revolution, 
its abolishment can only be attained by a special act for that purpose. 
If the federal constitution had provided for its abolishment the case would 
have been different ; but as there are no clauses in that instrument of 
such a nature, slavery remains as it was before that instrument was adopt- 
ed ; except, that before the revolution the colonies were not empowered 
to abolish it, either as a whole or in part ; whereas the states could do so 
after they became members of the confederation. We claim, therefore, 
that slavery is a national institution, over which the national government 
has no control, except so fir as the protection of the interests of the citi- 
zens of the United States are therein concerned. 

The congress cannot interfere with the rights of the citizen in his slaves, 
any more than it can with his rights in his iiorse or ox, or any other spe- 
cies of property. Not because a negro is no better than a horse or an ox. 
but because the right of the master to the services of his slave are 
equally as absolute as to those of his horse or his ox. The question does 
not arise upon the nature of the property held, but upon the right which 
the owner holds in such property, which right has been acquired by the 
laws and customs of the land, as established and practiced by the fathers 
themselves. 

When a citizen of one state leaves that state for the purpose of migrat- 
ing to another, to become a citizen thereof, he relinquishes his constitu- 
tional rights as a citizen of a foreign state, as connected with his property 
in slaves, and at once becomes subject to the laws of the state into which 
he has migrated. No man can acknowledge an allegiance to two states 
at the same time, and exercise the rights of a citizen in both of them. 
He must relinquish his rights in one of them, or he cannot secure them 
in either, except as a citizen of the United States. 

But when a man migrates from a state into the territories the case is 
different. The territories do not possess sovereign powers, and cannot, 
for that reason, accept the allegiance of the emigrant. If he is a citizen 
of any state, he can claim the rights of a citizen m the territories as soon 
as he has become a bona fide settler thereof 

The territories being held in trust for the people of the United States, 
they cannot be converted into an absolute domain, unless by the due pro- 
cess of law they become sovereign states. There being but five grand 
divisions of the government under the constitution, the people of a terri- 
tory cannot exercise powers which belong to either of these divisions, until 
it is duly empowered to act as one of them. The people of a territory 
cannot be claimed to be under the exclusive control of congress, for they 
have no voting representative in that body. They cannot claim the pow- 
ers of a sovereign state, because they are not recognized as such by any 
of the other branches of the government. They cannot exercise the 
powers belonging to legally constituted majorities, and thus attempt to 
legislate against the interests of the citizens of the United States, residing 
in the several states or in the territory, because they do not exercise the 



— 32 — 

rights of the majoi'ities in the same manner and to the same extent that 
the majvorities established under the constitutioy, are authorized to exercise 
such rights ; that is, they are not permitted to vote for the members of a 
legislature which can elect a United States senator ; they cannot vote for 
members of congress, nor can they vote for the electors for president 
and vice-president of the United States. If they are thus debarred from 
voting at the national elections, they are certainly debarred from voting 
upon questions which have a national influence upon the interests of the 
people of the various states. If the majority of the residents of a terri- 
tory are precluded from interfering with the national powers of the peo- 
ple of the several states, it is certainly reasonable to suppose that they 
cannot exercise any other power which would have a tendency to deprive 
the citizens of any of the states from enjoying all the rights which belong 
to them as the citizens of their respective states, and in the territories as 
citizens of the United States, if they should migrate thereto. 

If the people of the territories can enact laws which will have the effect 
of stopping the migration of the citizens of any other state to the terri- 
tories, they will be doing such citizens an injustice, by depriving them of 
their legal rights, besides which, they will affect the interests of the United 
States, by depriving it, to a certain extent, of the means of selling the 
territory to those who are justly entitled to buy it. 

The people of a territory cannot act in such territory except as citizens 
of the United States ; consequently they cannot exercise any powers 
which belong strictly to the people of a state, or which would interfere 
with the rights of such people, except they return to the state from whence 
they come, and then their powers do not extend beyond such state. 

The people of a state can exercise their powers both as citizens of the 
state and as citizens of the United States; they can exercise their powers 
as citizens of a state only through the state organization, and their powers 
as citizens of the L^nited States only through the organization of the gen- 
eral government as established by the federal constitution. The territo- 
rial organization not being that of a state, the people thereof cannot exer- 
cise powers which belong to a state, because they have no such political 
machinery ; they are, in consequence, compelled to confine their acts to 
those powers exercised under the general government, and conferred upon 
them as citizens of the United States. The constitution having author- 
ized the congress to admit new states, they are then authorized to exer- 
cise those powers which are necessary to place them in a position to be 
admitted as a new state. No one can deny that a state has the power to 
abolish or maintain slavery within its jurisdiciion ; but no one can refer 
to any act of any other branch of the government having in any way at- 
tempted to restrict or abolish slavery. The general government may 
have exercised its power to protect the rights of the master in his slave, 
but that act cannot be considered as being for or against slavery. The 
federal constitution having aclcnowledged the rigiit of property in slaves, 
the government formed under it is required to protect such properly in 
the same manner and to the same extent tha: it is bound to protect all 
other kinds of property. 

The territories of the United States are open for the settlement of all 
the citizens of the United States, if they wisii to migrate to them. This 
being the case, no one has the right to molest them in the exercise of this 
right. If a citizen of Massachusetts wishes to migrate to a territory, and 
refuses to takenvith him one or more slaves, he has the right to go there 
and enjoy his rights as a citizen of the United States. If a citizen of Vir- 



— 33 — 

ginia wishes to go to the same territory, and take with him one or more 
slaves, he has a right to go there and enjoy his rights as a citizen of the 
United States. And whenever either of these persons is deprived of his 
rights, he is entitled to the protection of the general government, and the 
enforcement of his jnst rights, in these particulars, in such territory. 

The object which the general government has in conferring upon the 
people of a territory an organic law, is to furnish them with the means 
which are necessary to enable theni to acquire the necessary population 
for admission into the Union as an independent state. If they should 
enact laws which would [have a tendency to retard this, they would frus- 
trate the designs of the government and of the people. If the legislature 
of any territory should exclude slavery therefrom, it would be saying to 
the people of the southern states, you may come to the territory if you 
will not bring slaves with you, although such people may be farmers, and 
are, in consequence, led to consider their slaves as essential to them as 
their horses, ploughs, or other means of cultivating the soil. AVhen 
slavery is established in any state or territory, free labor is not prohibited 
therefrom ; but when slavery is prohibited, inequality is established, and 
the whole system is disordered. From this it is easy to perceive how 
much more important the action of the legislature of a territory is to the 
people of the southern states than it is to the people of the northern. In 
the one case, the southerners are deprived of all participation in the ter- 
ritories, unless they are willing to change their entire manner of doing 
business, whilst, on the other hand, the northern people can emigrate to 
the territory and adopt their own manner of doing their business. 

If the soil and climate of a territory should be adapted to either slave 
or hired labor, one of these will be adopted, if the people of the United 
Slates, who emigrate to it, are permitted to exercise their wishes with 
regard to it. But if the legislature of a territory can abolish or establish 
slavery, such an exercise of their will cannot be voluntary ; for such 
legislation can stop the emigration of slave owners to the territory with 
their slaves, if it is permitted to exercise such powers. If the power 
to establish or abolish slavery is vested in the people of a territory, when 
they form their constitution preparatory to their mai<ing application for 
admission into the Union as a state, the case is different. Before they 
can take this action, the territory must possess a population which is suf- 
ficient to entitle them to a representation in congress. Now, if the cli- 
mate and soil is best adapted to slave labor, slave owners will migrate 
there and obtain the controlling power; but if they are better adapted to 
hired labor, the advocates of that kind of labor will have the control, thus 
allowing fach to establish the particular institution which is best adapted 
to the interests of the territory and of the people. If it is proper for the 
people, who are expected to live under, and whose interests are to be in- 
fluenced by the laws of such territory, to make such laws — and we admit 
this IS the only true doctrine — they should be allowed to make them, but 
not until they commence to exercise the powers of a sovereign people in 
the adoption of a state constitution. 

If the pe(^ple of a territory are empowered, through their legislature. 
to establish or abolish slavery within the territory, they can do so, al- 
though their number may not exceed one thousand. How any one can 
claim so much power for so small a number we cannot imagine. The 
constitution says, in the third paragraph of Sec. 2 of Art. I,, that the 
number of representatives in congress .shall not exceed one for every 
thirty thousand per^oits, excliiding Indians »ofc taxed, and two out of avery 

9 



five slaves. Congress being empowered to increase the number which 
shall be entitled to a representative, it has done so, until the number re- 
quired at this time has been increased to ninety-three thousand. The ob- 
ject of thus requiring each member of congress to represent a certain 
number of people instead of a certain extent of territory, is to compel 
him to represent and maintain the interests of his constituents, and, through 
them, those of the whole country. Each representative is not only al- 
lowed to vote upon measures connected with the commercial interests of 
his own people and state, but he is permitted to vote for or against the 
commercial interests of other people and states as well. His acts are 
therefore made to benefit or injure his own constituents, as well as those 
of his associates in congress. 

If this principle of equal representation is so essential among the people 
of the states, is it not equally as essential among the people of the United 
States and Territories? If all the members of congress are required by 
the constitution to represent each an equal number of constituents, and 
that number must not be less than that required by the constitution, is it 
not equally imperative that the legislative powers of a territory should 
represent as many people at least, when it assumes to legislate upon so 
vital an interest as that of slavery? A territory cannot be considered to 
be a state upon any consideration. It cannot, therefore, assume the right 
to exercise the powers of a state. It has not the responsibilities of a 
state, nor can it have such, until after it has complied with the require- 
ments of the federal constitution. It may be claimed that congress can 
make it a state, although the number of its people may not be sufficient, 
under the law, to entitle it to a representation in congress. We deny 
this. It is true that the constitution says that " each state shall have at 
least one representative," but that clause only applies to the states men- 
tioned in the same paragraph, and not to states which were not in existence 
at the time the constitution was adopted. Congress can, no doubt, admit 
new states and allow them each a representative, although their respective 
populations may not reach ninety -three thousand, but it cannot do so if 
their population does not reach at least thirty thovsand, as required by the 
constitution. 

Whenever a territorial legislature attempts to abolish slavery, it does 
not only legislate for or against the interests of the people in such terri- 
tory, but it also legislates f()r or against the interests of the people of the 
several states. Do not the territories belong to the people of the several 
states? We think we have already shown in this pamphlet that they do. 
No one we believe can dispute this ; for are they not kept open to the 
emigration of the whole people? And they must emigrate to them, or 
they could not become states, for the want of a sufficient population. It 
is plain to see, then, that such legislation would deprive the people in some 
of the states of their right to emigrate thereto, as free and independent 
citizens of the United States and of the several states. If the constitution 
has authorized the importation and sale of a certain kind of property, as 
we have clearly shown it has in regard to slaves, is it proper that the 
people of a territory, who can only act in a legislative capacity as citizens 
of the United States, should attempt to deprive the other citizens of the 
United States, who are their equals in all respects, from taking such prop- 
erty with them when emigrating into a territory ? Certainly not! Then 
why should the legislature of any territory be allowed to enact laws 
which would deprive the citizens of the United States of any of their 
rights in such territory as such citizens? No on© can dispute the right 



— 35 — 

of the people of a territory to establish for their own convenience any 
institution they may wish, but in doing so, they should remember that 
they have not the entire control over the territory so long as it remains 
such. Their rights in it are no greater than those of any other citizen of 
the United States. And they cannot acquire any other until they make 
an application for admission into the Union as a state; which application 
must be accompanied with a draft of the constitution which they propose 
as the organic law of their new government, under which they will acquire 
the rijrht to exercise the powers of the citizens of a state, as soon as con- 
gress admits their territory into the Union as a sovereign state. 

Men may differ in their opinions with regard to the institution of 
slavery ; but this difference of opinion cannot be made use of by one man, 
as conferring upon him the right to force others, who are his equals, to 
give up theirs. If one man is opposed to holding negroes, he may refuse 
to do so himself, but he has no power to force others to do the same 
thing. Nor can the man who maintains that slavery is right, force those 
who disagree with him to hold slaves. When a man deprives another of 
his right to hold slaves, he deprives him of a right which may be directly 
opposed to his own interests, as well as his principles ; but when a man 
refuses to give up his slaves he does not deprive the other of his right to 
refuse to hold slaves, although he may oppose his principles by so doing. 
Then is it not better for the man whose principles are only affected, to 
give in, than it is for the man whose principles and interests are both 
affected 1 We think no reasonable man can dispute it. 

It may be held by some men that slavery is a violation of the laws of 
both God and man. To all such we will say that, as regards the laws ofi 
God, one man is as capable of judging of them as another, and both have an 
equal right to maintain their individual construction of such a law as they 
may respectively deem proper, so far as their own actions are concerned, 
but no farther. Neither of them should be allowed to force upon the 
other their own version of the divine law. With regai'd to the laws of 
man, we claim that all men must obey those laws which belong to and 
conform with the organic law of their own country. If one man can 
make his own construction of the laws and refuse to abide by any other, 
so can another ; or if one man has the right to make other men abide by 
his construction of the laws, it is because he has been duly appointed to 
act as the judge of such laws. 

It is stated in the Declaration of Independence that all men "are 
created equal." To fully understand the assertion here made by the 
Fathers, we have only to refer to their own acts for the proper solution. 
Whatever strength there is in the assertion here made, originates from 
the respect we have for the men who made it ; their own acts are, there- 
fore, the best evidence we can produce to prove their meaning. They 
assert that all men are created equal, and yet they continued to hold 
negroes as their slaves; they did this, too, after they had pledged their 
"lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor," to sustain this solemn 
avowal. If they intended to acknowledge the negroes as their equals, 
why did they not liberate them from slavery, and thus lose a part of their 
fortune and preserve their honor? They had pledged their fortune, then 
why not sacrifice iti They did not do it, because they did not admit that 
negroes were the equals of men, nor did they refer to them when they 
made that " Declaration." They maintained that white men are equals. 
If they were equals then, they are equals now. How can one man, under 
these circumstances, assume the i-ight to dictate to his equals what are the 



— 36 — 

laws of God and what are not, and presume to control their acts accord- 
ingly 1 If all men are equal, they have no right to dictate to one another 
upon so vital a question as that of religion or the laws of God. All men 
being created equal, God will hold them equally responsible ; they should, 
therefore, each judge for himself; for they cannot be equal if one is per- 
mitted to judge for another, or one is made responsible for the acts of 
another. When God endows one man with better reasoning powers 
than another, it is not that he should rule over him with a rod of iron. It 
is expected that he will make use of his faculties to advance the interests 
of the world, and his weaker brother also, and not to oppress him. God 
commanded man to earn his living by the sweat of his face, and not by 
his power of control. Man must be led into the service of God by his 
reason and his love, not by the sword, or the condemnation of the laws 
of man. The greater the strength of the reasoning powers of a man, the 
more capable he is of instructing his more simple brother in the use of 
those reasoning faculties. If man were to be compelled by force to do 
right, God would have endowed certain men with holy natures and great 
physical strength, so that they could enforce his laws. 

if the Creator of man sought to inculcate the doctrines of religion or 
morality into the world by the means of mental persuasion, as we believe 
he has, why should man attempt to inculcate them by the force of physical 
power and arbitrary laws ? If slavery is a sin against the laws of 
God and man, why do not those laws condemn it, by retarding its exten- 
sion and destroying its prosperity and that of those who are its advocates 
and supporters? 

Those who are continually condemning negro slavery are never tired 
of declaring the evils which the system engenders, and the curse which 
God has placed upon those who are connected with it. They assert that 
the usage of the slaves by their masters is brutal — that slavery brings a 
curse upon the country and the people who support it, and that it impov- 
erishes the people in the southern states especially, to such an extent that 
they could not live if it was not for the aid they get from the northern 
states. 

If the brutal usage of the slaves by their masters is such as to make 
them worse off than those who hire themselves out, how is it that the 
number of slaves of the southern states have been increased from four 
hundred thousand to four millions? If slavery is such a curse as it is 
represented to be by the advocates of hired labor, how is it that the value 
of slaves has increased from an average price of one hundred to one 
thousand dollars each ? The total value of all the slaves in the United 
States when the constitution was adopted, did not exceed $400,000, now 
it exceeds $4,000,000,000. If a curse rests over the institution and those 
who maintain it, how is it that this enormous increase has been effected? 
If the slave states are so poor, how is it that they can keep up the value 
of their slaves at such high rates, when they have no other market but 
their own in which to sell them? If the southern states do not produce 
enough to keep the people, what do they produce with the labor of their 
negroes, the sale of which has enabled them to estimate their value so 
high as they do now ? Is it the northern people who maintain them as 
paupers to such an extent as this? 

These are all important questions, and should be fully and clearly 
answered before the system of slavery can be properly considered, or its 
effects upon the southern states so falsely described. 

But whether slavery is an evil or not, it cannot be interfered with br 



— S7 — 

congress or the legislature of a territory. Neither of these legislative 
bodies are authorized to abolish it, nor are they required to establish 
it. But they are required to protect it the same as all other property. 
Slavery is one of those institutions which can only be established or 
abolished by the state governments. There is no clause in the constitu- 
tion which authorizes congress to interfere with it, except in the importa- 
tion of slaves, and that power was not to be exercised until after 1808, 
just twenty years after the cunstitution was adopted. If there was to be 
no slavery because the constitution did not authorize congress to establish 
it, why should congress be restricted from abolishing the slave trade fur 
twenty years, unless it was intended that slavery should exist under the 
laws of those states which might retain it ? If the Fathers had intended 
to abolish slavery through the power of congress, they could have stated 
that intention just as well as that of abolishing the slave trade. 

As the constitution does not authorize congress to establish or abolish 
slavery, nor prohibit the states from doing so, the power to do so must 
belong to " the states or the people." If such powers are to be exer- 
cised by the states or the people, it cannot be exercised by the legisla- 
ture of a territory, for such a power is not referred to in the constitution. 
We hold, then, that the right to hold slaves is a national right, whilst the 
right to abolish it is a local one, which belongs entirely to the states, 
or the whole people when they exercise such right through the state 
governments. 

The day is not far distant when every nation in the civilized world will 
not only be the advocates of negro slavery in the form that it exists in 
this country, but where the soil and climate are suitable, they will 
establish slavery among their people, and thus confer upon the negro the 
only blessing which his race has enjoyed. They will furnish him a home, 
and a master who can make his labor not only yield him a comfortable 
living, but lead him to fulfill his duties to his creator. When England 
released her negro slaves, she did it at the expense of her toiling mil- 
ions of white men, by throwing lipon their shoulders a debt of over a 
hundred millions of dollars, and there it stands at this day, squeezing from 
the hard earnings of the poor and worse than enslaved whites of England 
the amount necessary to pay the interest only, not the principal. The 
rich do not pay the taxes ; they make the worker do that, by reducing 
his wages, increasing his rent and the price of his bread and clothing. 
And although England has done all this for her toiling whites, what good 
has she conferred upon the poor negroes ? She has impoverished her 
colonies and turned the negroes out into the fields and mountains, com- 
pelling them to subsist upon roots and other spontaneous productions. 

By the invention of machinery and the increase of the supply of pre- 
cious metals, the civilized nations of the world are all become rich and 
prosperous, so much so as to make it unnecessary for them to devote 
their time to physical toil. They can find enough to keep them employed 
in the more important branches of the sciences and arts. Some one must 
do the more laborious work of the cultivated fields and the cities. If the 
white man is not inclined to do it, and has become able to do something 
else, we must fill his place from the wandering tribes of Africa. If they 
are transferred to the fields of Europe in a free state, they will not obey 
those who could make them serviceable to themselves or any one else. 
This is proved by their conduct in the English and French West Indies, 
and elsewhere, where they have been made free. At one time slavery 
existed in every colony and nation in America. They were all prosper- 



— 38 — 

ous and happy, so much so that the people in most of the colonies re- 
belled against their mother country, and succeeded in gaining their inde- 
pendence. As soon as this object was obtained they liberated their slaves 
in all of them except those of the United States. What is the result? 
All that part of Spanish America is becoming lower and lower in the 
scale of civilization. Instead of benefitting the negro, they have driven 
him back to barbarism. They attempted to mak« the negro the equal of 
white men, both in law and social intercourse. They have succeeded 
admirably — but how have they succeeded ? By reducing themselves 
down to a level with the negro, and not by raising the negro up to their 
standard. 

In the United States, Cuba, and Brazil, slavery still continues in all its 
strength. Those are the only states on the whole continent which are 
rich and prosperous to-day. The fanatical cries of the Exeter Hall abo- 
litionists of old England, and the blood-thirsty freedom shriekers of the 
French revolution have not been able to induce the happy people of these 
three countries to ruin themselves and destroy the negroes by setting 
them free, to starve and become a pest and disgrace to themselves and 
their superiors. 

The blessings of God have been poured down upon this country in 
greater abundance than upon any other that the world has known. He 
has not only made us prosperous in wealth and in our pursuit of happi- 
ness, but he has made the ratio of increase of our population exceed that 
of any other nation on the fiice of the earth, if slavery brings with it 
a curse, how is it that so far we have received nothing but blessings'? 



%^^ »See Advertisement on last page. _^a! 



CIRCULATE THE DOCUMENTS! 

MTIOmrDEMOCRATIO 

QUARTERLY REVIEW, 

Hon. THOMAS B. FLORENCE, )„, ..^ 
" ISAAC LAWRENCE, J^iicutors. 

PUBLISHED IN WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. 



Subscription Price : $3 a Year, in advance. 

Clubs, Canvassers, Postmasters, and Agents, will bo supplied with 
the Review at the following rates: >,._ 

For 10 copies per annum, $27.50 

For 20 " "... 50.00 

J" For 50 ■' "... 112.50 

For 100 " "... 200.00 

Thi Cash to accompany the ordkr in ai,l cases. 



The first, second, and third numbers of the Review are now issued, the 
contents of which are as follows : 

CONTENTS OF NUMBER ONE. 

Salutatory — The Relation of the Democratic Party to the Government of the United States — History of 
the Two Years' Amendment to the Constitution of Massachusetts — The Outbreak at Harper's 
Ferry — The San Juan Question — James Buchanan : Containing a short Outline of his Career — The 
Appalachian Group of Indian Tribes : A Political Element — The United States Coast Survey— The 
Production of Cotton, and its Influence on Modern Civilization — Invocation — City of Washington — 
Quarterly Synopsis of our Foreign Commercial Relations — Alfred Tennyson — Rifles — British Novel- 
lEte — Death of Governor Hamilton— Stanwix— On the Probable Fall in the Value of Gold. 

CONTENTS OF NUMBER TWO. 

Slavery ta. Abolition — The Impending Crisis at the South : How to meet it — Mexico — Salem Witchcraft — 
Negro Slavery and the Moral Law — The Military Establishment of the United States — Walter Scott — 
Aerial Navigation — Ancient and Modern Oratory — Quarterly Synopsis of our Foreign Commercial 
Relations — Northern Notes from a Southern Sketch Book — Archives of Aboriginal Knowledge — 
Sh«ving : A Satire. 

CONTENTS OF NUMBER THREE. 

Slavery tu. Abolition — Southern Wealth and Northern Profits — Politics of the Republican Party — Gort 
pave the Union (a Song for the Times) — Japan — Social Restrictions — Washington Irving — Military 
F*tab!ishment of the United States — On seeing a Deer taken by his Hunter — Quarterly Synopsit of 
cur Foreign Commercial Relations — Sketch of the life of the Hon. Jacob Thompson, Secretary of the 
Interior — Militia System and Proposed Reorganization — Progress of the Age (a Satire) — A Vidit to 
the Mines of Pachacamac — Europe and the United States — The Duties of Piiblic Opinion — Lord 
Macaulay and bis History of England — The Growth of Sardinia. 

NUMBER FOUR WILL BE ISSUED FROIVI THE PRESS ON THE FIRST OF 
OCTOBER ENSUING. 

Complete and thorough arrangements have been made to place Thk Review 
in a position to insure its permanency. The success which has attended the 
work has been exceedingly gratifying. The necessity for it. or for a similar pub- 
lication, none presume to deny. To supply this want will be the aim of the 
publishers. In this effort, laudable and praiseworthy, the encouraging assistance 
and countenance of the entire Democratic Party of the Union is solicited. 
That we will secure this desirable and invaluable aid wc are weH persuaded. 
It is therefore confidently and fearlessly believed the '• Quarterly" will receive 
a cordial welcome and a liberal support throughout the land. To attain unquei- 
tionable success and secure a large circulation, we have fixed the price of sub- 
scription at the very low rate of J^" Three Dollars a year, payable invariably 
IN ADVANCE. This will induce, we hope, every Democrat who can do so, with- 
out injury to himself or family, to spare this trifling sum to determine the per- 
manent establishment of The Review. We promise on our pari to render 
them a full and fair equivalent for their generous contributions. We hope ere 
Ions to be able to chronicle the pleasing fact that the National Democratic Quar- 
terly Review ha* a fixed and approved place in the hands, household, and 
heart of every Democrat in the United States. 

Address — 

LITTLE, MORRIS & CO., PubUshers, 

Office of th« National Democratic Quarterly Review, 

WASHIKGTON CITY, D. C. 



i>i If 







,^^ .0^ ♦•':A!* "^o, a|J> oj^vr* \, 







'^''\ /.'^-X .^°*'i^'> /<•»•% ^' 





• JO'' 




I* - 1 • 




-^0^ 









v^«)- 









^ ."J^t* V c?^ y^j;^. '°o .4 















.0^ 



^^.0 9^' 







^- ^ V 



^o* iO 



^"•^^. -. 




VAO^ 























\.** 



«^' 



^*^^r 











.0^ > 




l4-^ .1 






5^ 


















\/ 



«^^-% 









* «.^" ^. 




5^^ 



